home

Rev. Wright: Obama A Politician

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:30:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I am no fan of Rev. Wright, and for the sake of the Democratic Party, I wish he would keep quiet until after November, but I agree with this:

MOYERS:Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago. Wanted to know about the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion. He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led him to the faith. . . . You were, for 20 years, his spiritual counsel. He has said that. And, yet, he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about you. How did those words...how did it go down with you when you heard Barack Obama say those things? . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me

WRIGHT: It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.

Indeed. And there is nothing wrong with that. Rev. Wright takes Obama off the pedestal. As we should take ALL POLITICIANS off the pedestal.

< The Argument Obama Supporters Should Avoid | My View: On David Shuster >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rev. Wright: Obama A Politician | 240 comments (240 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I Wonder If Wright Really Has No Hard Feelings (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    In addition to doing Moyers, he's also appearing at, IIRC, the Press Club.  I don't see how he can possibly help Obama.  He must know that.  

    The man (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    believes a lot of very odd things.  Why would we assume he's even remotely rational?

    Parent
    I think Obama wanted Wright (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:11:43 PM EST
    to do the interview and appear at the National Press Club to "change hearts and minds."
    But until Wright apologizes for his hateful comments about Hillary from the pulpit - no deal!
    Wright is repulsive.

    Parent
    I Doubt That (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:17:04 PM EST
    Remember Obama's big national conversation about race?  He dropped that the second after his speech was over.  He doesn't want to talk about Wright one more second than he has to (not that I blame him).

    Parent
    The lack of an apology to HRC (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    is what burns me most of all.  Nothing excuses Obama for leaving that crude and hateful attack on his opponent launched on his behalf (though certainly not at his behest) unaddressed.  His friend and mentor slandered the Clintons in his name and frankly insulted all women, not just Hillary, and the crickets chirp.

    Parent
    The only way (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    he can help, unfortunately, is to abase himself to some degree before the flag and pay homage to "America."  He can do it while voicing anger at those who misconstrued his words, but there must be a strong element of homage.

    A number of sources put the number of hard core white racists in America at about 15%.  I think the Dem primary shows that the number of people willing to vote for a black candidate for President is a lot higher than that.  But in between, there are some tens of percents of decent-hearted Americans torn between the endemically racist culture in which they were raised, and a post-racist society.  Wright's words have the potential to affect a lot of those people.

    Parent

    15% of whites are hard core racists? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Ed on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:00:56 PM EST
    Please cite your sources.  Given that approx. 75% of the U.S. population is white, 15% hard core racists would mean that 1 in 5 whites is a hard core racist.  You either have a very loose definition of hard core or your numbers are exaggerated.

    Parent
    If the Clintons Can Be Called Racists (5.00 / 12) (#68)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:10:01 PM EST
    then we're all racists.  So I'd say 15% is an underestimate.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:16:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Racist? (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    All I can say is that even in this dark corner (except for Edwards) of South Carolina--yes, I said the grreat state of SC--the white racists are marrying up with black folks and raising brown kids at a pretty rapid clip.  I understand Thurmond's statue now has an addendum--the name of his half-black daughter.  Where are these hardcore racists if they are not here in the cradle of the unlamented confederacy?  Maybe they are busy moving to the cemetery (and the sooner the better).

    Parent
    I only know the Pugs aren't in a Conga line cuz .. (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:01:01 PM EST
    ... they don't do Latin, generally.

    They're definitely celebrating this "stat" under Wright's view, though. If I'm reading the right wing playbook correctly, once the Dems are done tanking Sen Clinton's run is, the Wright view will be AKA the Wright / Obama view: that whites are ALL racist.

    Redeemable Obama gift given previously: he called his natural mom a racist, and the white grandmother who raised him a racist. It's hard to find any white people who've helped him and he's spoken about in positive terms, never mind actually THANKED.

    Pugs will tweak it so its jessssst outside plausible deniability and defies explanation in a quick byte medium. Hot buttons like race always sound worse when someone tries to "explain" in the too little time allotted: eg, 'some of my best friends are black'.

    Well, some of my best friends actually ARE black, but in these days of pre-packaged one size fits all insta-judgmental dymo-labeling, not having to think something out (w/ context) is a good thing. Huh. I can think of very few states of mind I'd find more terrifying than that reactionary "stress-free" way of thinking, but that's just me.

    And as for the GOP's plans to play that slimy a race card, oh yes they will, you KNOW they will.

    Parent

    15% of all white democrats (none / 0) (#149)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:07:54 PM EST
    It's going to be even worse out there in the big bad world.

    Parent
    I Agree (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:07:34 PM EST
    What Wright would have to do to try to "fix" this for Obama he isn't going to do and I'm not sure I'd want to watch.  I think some of his statements are offensive, but watching him be torn apart by Tim Russert or some other MSMer who have done more damage to the country than Wright ever could is not anything I particularly want to see.  Which makes it curious that Wright is speaking out now.  

    The problem with Wright is not just race.  I don't think his comments on race are going to be what hurts Obama.  It's his stuff that's viewed as anti-American.  Obama is already viewed as an "other" and this will only add to that perception.

    My theory, FWIW, on women and all people of color is that they are much more prone to being painted as some sort of weird alien "other" than white men.  The GOP was able to smear Gore and Kerry somewhat as Other and they had both had long, national political careers and were both white men.  And Obama is in more danger of it than Clinton.  Not because he's black, but because he's new.  For better or worse, people feel like they know Hillary Clinton.  And I really do believe for women and people of color, many Americans have to know them to love them.  That, more than anything else, I fear will be Obama's undoing.  He's such a blank slate to most Americans, the GOP will be able to paint anything on it they want.  

    Parent

    At the moment I think (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:21:12 PM EST
    the Obama camp is being far too optimistic about his image.  Dismissing blue collar voters and being nonchalant about Republican attacks is perhaps helpful as a primary tactic, but it is awful when you think of the entire country turning its attention onto Obama, and half of that country being very negative and/or skeptical.  The community organizer thing will not go far in the GE.  That along with the Harvard Law Review is a touchstone he won't have in the GE.  Most people in America will never get into Harvard and many will feel a certain amount of resentment towards it.  Time for a change from Obama.

    Parent
    Can anyone tell me (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:37:16 PM EST
    what Obama actually did as a community organizer?  He throws it in his resume occasionally, but I've never actually heard WHAT he organized or helped with?

    Parent
    Now That I Think About It, No (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:46:23 PM EST
    Which is amazing because I'm a political junkie.  I should have some idea.  Weird.

    Although maybe it's in his books.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:01:11 PM EST
    you just answered my question - I don't think ANYONE can say what he did.  Wouldn't you play this up in stump speeches if you were that involved as a community organizer?  I've heard time and again how Hillary went after law school to help register migrant workers, and her work with children and families, etc.

    I asked my co-workers who are the Obama supporters - two very smart men who are very enthusiastic about Obama, and they couldn't really give me an answer either...

    Parent

    Here is a very rosy (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:56:14 PM EST
    depiction from the Nation of his work there.  He also organized a voting registration drive I believe.

    Obama:  Community Organizer

    It's good work.  But IMO it's not that much to hang your hat on.  Someone made a point earlier (somewhere) about Senator Clinton and her work as a Senator.  They compared her concern for upstate NY to community organizing.  I don't think it's a bad comparison.  I don't really see the great difference between community organizing and political work in general.  Community organizing is local politics.  Why act like it's so much better?  You have to bite your tongue, fib, and scoot.  It's politics.  

    Parent

    Even his devotees don't know (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:58:31 PM EST
    My office mate is an OFB.
    The day after THE SPEECH, he was going on and on about how monumental the words were. I said I don't look at the words, I look at the actions.
    "He was a community organizer!"
    "Again, nice words but what did he do as an organizer?"
    "He helped his community!"
    "How?"
    "I don't know...."
    That was the actual conversation.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by themomcat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST
    It never ceases to amaze me that many people cannot tell you what the candidate they support actually did to gain their support. And that applies to just about any candidate Dem, Rep or otherwise.

    Parent
    people are not resentful that they can not (none / 0) (#241)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:40:26 AM EST
    get in to Harvard.  They are sick to death of the idea that some people think they are resentful because they couldn't go to Harvard.  What you said is actually very "elitist" (everyone wants to be us, that is how we know we are wonderful).
    Most people think they are just fine even if they didn't get in to Harvard.  Most people have no particular desire to go to Harvard.  

    Parent
    there is no such a thing as a post racist society (none / 0) (#239)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:33:02 AM EST
    when the front runner for the nomination is willing to make racists out of his opponent and her husband to take advantage of racial resentment and paranoia.

    Parent
    Rev. Wright is human (none / 0) (#87)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    of course he has feelings.  And I won't be surprised if he is hurt.  The realization after twenty years that Obama IS REALLY just a politician must hurt especially after being discarded with statements such as:  "Had he not announced his retirement, I would have left his church after learning of those words . . . . from YouTube."  I wonder if he would say at some point that "yes, Obama and his family were there when he gave that sermon."  Nothing like righteous indignation of someone who considers himself doing God's work.  

    Parent
    In other words (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:36:21 PM EST
    Wright is implying that Obama really believes what he's studied under Wright for 20 years.  It's just that now, as a "politician," Obama has to lie about it.

    I doubt it (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:39:31 PM EST
    but many people will get that impression.

    For Obama, I think this interview is bad.

    Parent

    Blank state status (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by rnibs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:52 PM EST
    I think because people mostly know him as hope and change without many specifics (at least no specifics that come through the MSM).  This kind of blank slate status allows people to make associations that may or may not be correct.  They're trying to build a mental image of him and there's not much to contradict stuff like this in their minds.  It mostly depends on whether the MSM makes anything of this.  If not, it will make no difference.  If they do, people are going to try to fit it into their mental picture of him, even if it's presented incorrectly or incompletely.

    That said, this is just part of politics.  Hillary takes this kind of stuff in stride every day and lets it roll off her shoulders and keeps on going.  Barry could learn a thing or two from her.

    Parent

    just becuase (1.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:42:49 PM EST
    many people will get the wrong impression doesn't mean we spread it,


    Parent
    I suspect (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    you don't have any big problem with spreading things about Clinton.

    Parent
    TruthMatters Is A Staple On HuffPo/Anti-Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST


    Parent
    actually I don't post on (none / 0) (#43)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:55:10 PM EST
    huffingtonpost

    my name was taken :-P

    Parent

    It's Odd The Other TruthMatters Has Your Mindset (4.50 / 2) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:10:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh (3.00 / 1) (#88)
    by mrjerbub on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:20:45 PM EST
    You are a surgeon.

    Parent
    We are not spreading it by (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    talking about it. It is an issue in the primary and will be a HUGE issue in the GE.

    Parent
    you really (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:51:48 PM EST
    need to go visit Hillaryis44, or Taylormarsh.com or Hillaryclinton.com

    I can't tell you how many times I see 1 comment somewhere quoted someone else and spread.

    taylor marsh posters still think "oversampling" AA's  screws up a poll, because 1 poster on MSNBC got it wrong and was quoted at taylormarsh.com  and taylor marsh nor anyone else either 1) doesn't know what oversampling really means and how it works
    or 2) didn't care enough to fix it. and later ofcourse I saw the same types of comments at MyDD and HillaryClinton.com because 1 poster was wrong but got quoted everyone else.

    you never know who is reading your comment and quoting it somewhere else.

    Parent

    so... (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by dws3665 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:58:07 PM EST
    what is your point? Taylor is an avowed Clinton partisan. She says so, LOUDLY. She makes no claims to even-handedness or impartiality. The same cannot be said for the editorial staff of the HuffPo, Josh Marshall, etc. They claim simply to be progressive and 'reality based.' In fact, they have as strong a point of view as Taylor Marsh. They're just not honest about it.

    Parent
    So (4.00 / 1) (#59)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:02:49 PM EST
    ...macerating reality is ok, as long as you're honest about your bias.  OK, got it.

    RedState rules apply!

    Parent

    I do wish (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    media pundits and A-list bloggers were up front about their preferences in the form of a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen.  It would make it easier to apply the proper filters.

    Parent
    They Don't So They Can Reel You In... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:28:05 PM EST


    Parent
    It's similar to carrying concealed weapons. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    concealing them is against the law; carrying in plain sight is o.k. I am only talking about knives)  It's the principle of putting people on notice that you "are carrying."

    Parent
    do you know what macerate means? (none / 0) (#232)
    by dws3665 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:11:55 AM EST
    What is soaking in liquid? But regardless, it's the hypocrisy, not the inaccuracy, that rankles me most. Mangling reality is a problem, but in reading the writer who is honest and up front about his or her bias, an intelligent reader can know that they're getting spun, and you know there's a decent chance that reality is getting mangled. When you read WKJM, however, you are presented with an author who does not acknowledge his biases, in fact denies them, and then acts as though he is telling the unbiased truth. Just my $.02, but I believe that that is much worse.

    Parent
    Thanks... (none / 0) (#246)
    by mattt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    I meant "masticate."  Dang, I thought that was a pretty good metaphor and I blew it.

    As far as TPM and hypocrisy....I'm not sure I recall where TPM pedged to be fair and balanced on the primary.  Certainly TPM and JMM make no claims to overall objectivity - their editorial bias is obviously pro-Dem, left-of-center, and nobody here seems to mind that.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Trickster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:35:59 PM EST
    I am not a fan of Sen. Obama.  Far from it.  If perchance he wins the Democratic nomination I will hold my nose and vote for him.  But he is not there yet, and I have high hopes that he will not get there and don't mind taking steps in aid of those hopes.

    Now I'm not going to go running around engaging in dishonest smear campaigns against him.  But if I speak my mind as honestly and fairly as I know how, and the fallout of my words happens to stain the Illinois senator, que sera sera.

    Parent

    A new kind of politics (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:40:51 PM EST
    Uh-huh.


    Parent
    I support Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Dave B on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:44:03 PM EST
    And I don't think that he was saying that Obama agrees with him, but I'm sure the Republicans will try to spin it that way.  I think the Clinton campaign should keep their mouths shut about it.

    The Republicans will not be able to help themselves.  They are already storing the footage away for later.

    Parent

    I'm just sayin' (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:52 PM EST
    Obama is a politician.  Rev. Wright said it.  I agree that the Clinton campaign should stay away from this issue.  

    Parent
    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:04:22 PM EST
    won't touch this one with a 10 foot pole, unless she's determined to lose.

    Parent
    She's way too smart (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:22:56 PM EST
    for that.  

    Parent
    Girlfriend's working the 'Well you should ask him' (4.66 / 3) (#188)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:30:11 PM EST
    Yessss -- make him own his words and deeds, and tote his own baggage.

    Angelic smile (optional)

    Perfect way to disarm those landmines that want to blow her up for her own failings AND Obama's that are piling up by the day.

    In closing, bwaaaHAHHAHAAHA.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by rnibs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:01:08 PM EST


    Parent
    He said (4.00 / 1) (#21)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:47:25 PM EST
    Obama was a politician; didn't rule out a "new kind of politician." ;)

    Parent
    Hee (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:22 PM EST
    His tone said all I needed to hear when he said it. ;-)

    Parent
    I've Ruled Out Obama Is A New Kind Of Politician.. (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:55:21 PM EST
    He is business as usual.

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    is soooo old politics that every time I read or hear someone who makes the new kind of politician claim it makes be laugh.

    As the old saying goes 'there's one born every minute.'

    Parent

    No Kidding! (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:28:32 PM EST
    I feel like finding my old peace symbol when he talks.  :)

    Parent
    Nice, mattt (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST


    Parent
    What he said, in so many words... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:33:43 PM EST
    He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician.
    is that Barack Obama is a liar. STRAIGHT FROM HIS PASTOR'S MOUTH!!! It doesn't get any better than that..ROFLMAO Seriously..that sound bite is going straight into the GOP anti-Obama tape file. With friends like Obama has, he doesn't need any enemies, he can do the damage to his campaign all by himself, with a little help from his friends. What's next? An endorsement by Tony Rezko?

    Parent
    so you are (4.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    saying ALL politicians including Hillary Clinton lie?

    because THAT is what you are implying.

    Parent

    Yes, absolutely (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:42:34 PM EST
    all politicians lie.  Absolutely.  Every single one does.

    I'm just saying this interview reveals a more damaging lie than most.

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:46:45 PM EST
    the problem with being a holier-than-thou candidate is that the fall from grace is so much more precipitous.

    I've been telling my Obama supporting mom for months, "Mom, he's just a politician!"  She thinks he's a Christ-like figure.  

    Parent

    Spitzer for instance (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Why do people think that? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM EST
    Christ told people what they didn't want to hear.

    Parent
    Why? Because they are trusting, ... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:11 PM EST
    ... and want to believe the best of everyone, until something is proved otherwise. My Mom would react exactly the same way. So by remaining a blank slate (and aided by his adoring media coverage), Obama is prolonging this honeymoon perception.

    Parent
    In addition (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:44:21 PM EST
    I didn't say that Obama actually DID lie about his feelings about Wright.  I'm only saying that Wright implied that Wright believed that Obama lied about his feelings about Wright -- because Obama is a politician..

    Parent
    Well I keep harping on Geffen (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    But no one ever reminds me that Geffen said "all politicians lie" and is anyone willing to admit that Geffen was talking about Obama too!??

    Which I'm not sure that he was.

    We attach a lot of importance to truthfulness when it comes to evaluating character.

    Personally, I think that's wrong but I understand the political environment relevant to this topic.

    Parent

    Truth is so beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:26 PM EST
    it must have a bodyguard of lies.

    Parent
    I have stated it MANY TIMES (4.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:42:09 PM EST
    But I disagree that Obama lied about disagreeing with Wright. I think he chose that church for political reasons. I personally doubt he thought twice about Wright myself.

    Parent
    ding ding ding (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by progrocks on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:14 PM EST
    you want to be a powerful black politician down there, you go to that church. simple as that. hell, i would not even be surprised that deep down he has the same beliefs that he had 20 years ago, but he wants to get elected, so that is where he went. Atheists are the new gays in politics, the ones who truly have to cover.

    I think I am about to join a unitarian church now...

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:20:51 PM EST
    ...aLAN cOLMES is getting butchered with Hannity's commentary on Wright.

    He's repoeated everything that I heard on Dkos to defend the link to his church...and he's still getting murdered.  He's actually putting up the best arguments i've seen on Dkos and he's getting his head handed to him.

    oh the humanity.

    Parent

    I Agree (5.00 / 8) (#52)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:59:37 PM EST
    To the extent Obama has lied, I believe it has to do with why he went to that church in the first place.  It wasn't spiritual power he went looking for, it was political connections and credibility with the black community in Chicago.  

    Now, of course, a lot of people choose their church for social or career reasons.  He's hardly the first to look at a congregation and see potential business contacts.  The problem is that in this country, politicians aren't allowed to speak the truth about such things.  They must all pretend to be moved solely and completely by the Holy Spirit.  So Obama is stuck.

    In some ways, I feel kind of bad for him.  But then I remember all the times he's used this same pious crap (lecturing pro-choice forces about the morality of the forced birth zealots, lecturing the Dems about being more respectful of religion) that it's hard for me to feel too bad for him.

    I don't think Obama believes a lot of things Wright said.  I do think it's going to hurt him anyway if he's the nominee.

    Parent

    But, Michelle does and his daughters are exposed.. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by alexei on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    to Wright and the theology.

    Parent
    I'm Not Sure Michelle Does Either (4.50 / 2) (#141)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:53 PM EST
    I think the Obamas are more ambitious than radical.  

    I admit that my father wouldn't put me in a church with which he disagreed vehemently with the teachings (in fact we quit a church after a sermon my father thought implied bombing abortion clinics was understandable), but maybe the daughters went to another part of the church during the adult sermons.  Or maybe the Obamas believe what Wright says.  Or believe the good outweighs the bad.  I don't know and in some ways I don't care, the kids are theirs, not mine.

    Parent

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:05:04 PM EST
    Michelle's father was dem precinct captain in Chicago. Her connections run deep.

    Parent
    I do because this is the first time that she has.. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by alexei on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:30:06 PM EST
    been proud to be an American.  I'm not saying that she isn't an ambitious one, she is, but I also think that she does believe in the racial part of the Wright sermons.

    Parent
    I can agree (4.50 / 2) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:58 PM EST
    to the extent that he joined the church for purely political reasons.

    Inasmuch as agreeing with what Wright said; I don't believe Obama cares about what Wright says one way or another. Obama, I've come to believe is one of the most cynical politicians of our time.

    Obama was there to be seen. Period.

    Parent

    Obama has admitted joining for political reasons (none / 0) (#233)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:57:58 AM EST
    In one of his books and then recently at the "Compassion Forum" he stated that the community he was trying to help was comprised of people for whom religion or Christianity is central.  He realized, he said, he couldn't be as effective with them unless he joined a church.  He joked about this at that recent televised forum.

      He does admit outright that he joined for political reasons, but he also insists he became converted (which also of course he would have to say but I don't know for sure it's true or untrue).

     

    Parent

    which makes hjis old claim to be (none / 0) (#238)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:29:35 AM EST
    the only democrat who can reach out to the "faith community" even more cynical than I thought to begin with.
    Remember his whole schtick about how democrats, particularly the gay community was "hermetically sealed" from the faith community and "democrats have a problem with religion", forgetting that most democrats are religious just like most republicans (but we have more atheists and agnostics and that's perfectly fine) are Christians, just in a slightly smaller percentage.  That whole thing was what first turned me off to him.  At the time I said many many times that he was creating a division that did not exist so that he could sell himself as the solution.  I found it cynical, damaging and arrogant for him to reinforce a right wing attack on democrats so that he could profit by it.

    Parent
    pardon the long response, but ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by dws3665 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:55:02 PM EST
    Duh.

    Parent
    You honestly claiming they don't? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Trickster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    Of course they all lie.  However, they don't all lie equally.  Far from it.  Some lie when they have to, some are neutral about lying/truthing, some enjoy lying, some do it like breathing.

    Parent
    Taking off the pedestal (none / 0) (#15)
    by jpete on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    is about assumptions, and not necessarily facts.

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#30)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:50:09 PM EST
    the GOP interpretation.  Thanks for the preview.

    Pastor and politician are two different vocations.  Using "politician" as a derogatory is playing the right wing, glibertarian, Grover Norquist game.

    Parent

    we're not supposed to mention anything (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:05:55 PM EST
    the GOP may use against Obama?
    Seems you're stuck in the pre-Wright days.


    Parent
    Wright (none / 0) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:05 PM EST
    getting paid by Hillary?

    Whew*......This is devastating stuff.

    Parent

    Rev. Wright (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    is the gift that keeps on giving - to the Clinton and McCain campaigns.

    Wright speaks (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:54:14 PM EST
    Obama drops another 5 points

    Parent
    McCain (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:17:51 PM EST
    nailed it again on the Nightly News when he got a question about Heagee (sp?)  He alluded to Wright without even saying his name.

    Win/win.

    Parent

    Do tell (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:24:23 PM EST
    What was the question and what did McCain say?

    Parent
    Wasn't that the one where he (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:30 PM EST
    said that he disapproved of what Hagee said but was happy to have his support?

    Parent
    gleefully supporting a McCain (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:33:43 PM EST
    line of attack.  what else should we expect...

    Parent
    AgreeToDisagree, what is this in reference to? (none / 0) (#229)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:26:03 PM EST
    who is supporting McCain's attack so gleefully?

    Parent
    Let me guess (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    Something along the lines of, "He endorsed me but I'm not a member of his church and he was not my spiritual mentor for 20 years."


    Parent
    you got it! (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:13:30 PM EST
    and Chris Matthews said Wright is Obama's Iraq.


    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    I found it interesting how many Obama supporters argued that good liberals have a duty to defend Wright to the death, notwithstanding that their own candidate had refused to do so!

    Rev. Wright is not a stupid guy and of course he understands how this all works.  But it's interesting that he won't play the game to the extent of keeping a low profile to help Obama out.

    I saw a very interesting column in the Detroit Free Press to the effect that Wright's keynote address to the NAACP this weekend may actually have been orchestrated by Clinton supporters.  I wonder if that's true.

    Did Clinton also force him to accept? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:55:55 PM EST


    Parent
    Hmmm.... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    Wright and Kwame Kilpatrick on the same dais together?

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:23:07 PM EST
    Apparently the word on the street is that Kilpatrick is secretly a Clinton supporter.  I have no idea if it's true, but he keeps it very very quiet if it's true.  Understandably so.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#243)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:03:49 AM EST
    I thought I heard he supported Obama, but I'm sure your sources are better than mine!

    Parent
    The Clinton Camp Orchestrated Cain Killing Abel :) (5.00 / 8) (#58)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:02:14 PM EST


    Parent
    LOL*I (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:05:53 PM EST
    Everything is Hillary's fault.  Such power.  :)

    Parent
    After W (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:51:56 PM EST
    perhaps a competent omnipotence as president would be a relief.

    Just kiddin'....

    Parent

    Well gosh (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:23:51 PM EST
    Of course it's his choice.  I just said I found his choice interesting.  I think we all agree it's a free country.

    Parent
    What I find interesting is that he's basically (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:29:59 PM EST
    saying that Obama's lying when he distances himself from Wright.  Long version of "he's a politician," is "he's lying so he doesn't lose the election and I'm cool with that because I know he doesn't mean it."

    Parent
    It speaks truly of Obama (which is to say poorly) (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    It speaks truly in that he is just a politician.  He joined and stayed in that church for political reasons (get votes from the neighborhood) and he is now distancing himself from that church for political reasons (get votes from the country), yet he is only distancing himself so far for political reasons (keep AA votes).

    But the truth does not reflect well on him, because his campaign is built entirely on a lie (that he is not just a politician - he offers nothing of policy substance to voters beyond his false and hypocritical claims about political change), and at the end of the day, I just can't respect a man that would thoroughly embrace a racist, anti-semitic, anti-American, and astonishingly and unrepentently crude individual like Wright for 20 years.  Crass politics justifies kissing a lot of pigs, but there are limits.

    And that's the charitable interpretation (none / 0) (#24)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:04 PM EST
    The uncharitable interpretation is that Obama embraced Wright for 20 years because he feels at home with him.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:33:37 PM EST
    the uncharitable interpretation may be correct.  

    Parent
    Just another politician (none / 0) (#35)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    Actually, this is an argument that I see as favoring Obama. I prefer a politician to a Messiah. Messiahs bring big trouble, especially when they dabble in politics.

    Parent
    See my brass tacks post on this (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:13:51 PM EST
    If not a messiah then what does he actually offer?

    Parent
    I would too BUT (none / 0) (#231)
    by angie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:18:25 PM EST
    Obama's whole premise is that he isn't a politician.  In fact, that is what turned me off of him in the first place -- I have no problem with a politician who admits he/she is one.  But I find it down right insulting for a politician (and make no mistake, anyone running for President of the United States of America in one of the two major parties, is  a politician) to tell me he isn't one. If Obama had admitted from the beginning he was a politician, fine.  But, Obama cannot undue his initial lie now by claiming he is, after all, just a politician.  

    Parent
    davnee...check this out (none / 0) (#60)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaReligion

    Parent
    page not found (none / 0) (#182)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:24:09 PM EST


    Parent
    It Is Always Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:47:24 PM EST
    When the curtain is drawn away, and you get to realize that these are just people, not false gods or wizzards. They are people who are doing a job, a job that they believe in, and a job that involves a certain balance of acting and suspension of disbelief, in order to both satisfy your customers and get your job done.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:51:34 PM EST
    Can I quote you the next time an Obama supporter brings up sniper fire?

    I think that's a wonderful comment.


    Parent

    Feel Free (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:52:36 PM EST


    Parent
    They're not wizards!?! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:00:20 PM EST
    Crosses Obama off wizard scroll.

    Gosh, they're aren't many names on this list anymore.

    America may have a wizard gap!

    ;)

    Parent

    Obama is a Squib? (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    Flunked out of Hogwarts, had to go to Columbia and Harvard?

    Parent
    Litigatormom... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:11:06 PM EST
    You are my new favorite poster. Almost had a screen full of water on that one!

    I bet he flunked Herbology and Potions!

    :)

    Parent

    Wow... (none / 0) (#179)
    by reynwrap582 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:23:19 PM EST
    That's a perfect set up for a joke I can't use here.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#244)
    by cmugirl on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:04:48 AM EST
    I thought of that too as I was writing it!

    Parent
    So let's get down to brass tacks (4.94 / 17) (#67)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:09:39 PM EST
    Because I agree with your comment.  The brass tacks are this: if Obama is not a prophet of new politics, what the heck else does he offer a (Progressive Dem) voter?

    • He's got minimal experience to bring to bear on the hardest and most important job in the world.
    • His record marks no extraordinary or courageous or hard-won accomplishments, save one strong anti-war speech that was in truth politically expedient and not at all courageous for him given the constituents he served at the time.
    • He does not think well on his feet, nor does he appear to like working hard.
    • He appears to be extraordinarily thin-skinned.
    • He shows no affinity for working class people nor any outward devotion to populist ideals

    Enough on style, competence and gravitas.  On to policy.  This will just be a short list.

    • His rhetoric on reproductive rights raises red flags.
    • He appears to favor Republican foreign policy, with some occasional and alarming appeasement rhetoric thrown in
    • His rhetoric and his actions on gay rights suggest he does not care one whit about those rights.  Pro forma support.  Nothing more.
    • He's said some disturbing things about social security and privatization
    • I don't know what the heck he's talking about on taxes
    • He's gotten serious chunks of change from Wall Street - what does that mean for the prospect of needed regulation?
     - AND He doesn't believe in universal healthcare - in fact he's running against it using Republican talking points!!!!!!

    If he's not a prophet after all, then why is anyone "progressive" who was once blinded but now can see voting for this man?

    Parent

    yep (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by pluege on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    pretty good recap and pointed question.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:28:51 PM EST
    The implications mean we know nothing about what Obama really is-- his beliefs, policies, values--nothing. He seems the Democrat's Mitt Romney.
     Remember, George ran as a moderate, then look at what happened. Once burned, twice shy. Why should I vote for Obama again? Because I can count on his words or policies, his character or values? What?

    Parent
    Most Of What You Say (4.00 / 1) (#144)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:01:25 PM EST
    Can also be attributed to Hillary, by an Obamamaniac. If you remove the love dust both candidates are remarkably similar. Hillary seems just as conservative as Obama, to me. Looking at their votes and policy speeches they are almost identical.

    In fact Hillary is considered the number one democrat that R's can go to when they want to get a bipartisan bill passed. Both seem to have that special skill of being able to work out a deal with the R's.

     

    - For many years, whenever a Republican senator looked for a Democrat to cosponsor a bill, one name popped immediately to mind - Hillary Clinton, according to South Carolina's senior senator, Lindsey Graham.

    link

    And the experience question seems a really vapid talking point to me because there is no way to measure what kinds of experience make for a good president. Any argument you would make for Clinton over Obama regarding this rules out Clinton for McCain, and we are all sure that he would make a terrible president.

    I like Hillary and voted for her in the primary, but at this point I see both pretty identical, each having electable advantages that equal out in my mind. Both can beat McCain.  

    Parent

    That's just funny. (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by davnee on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:18:33 PM EST
    I thought bipartisanship was supposed to be good.  Why not pick the person who is you know actually really good at it.  The fallacy in your point is that you are assuming that she's selling out progressive values every time she goes down the bipartisan path.  All progressive issues and values are not created equal.  You'd have to look at where and when and on what she was compromising and why.

    And the one thing no amount of Obama love dust can obscure is that she has way more political experience then he does and is better prepared for the job.  Any way you slice it.  Is she the most qualified person to run for the presidency ever?  No. But she is the most qualified Democrat left in the race by a wide country mile.  And I would submit that she has the most usefully unique experience of anyone that has run for the presidency in a long while.  She worked as a young adult to help build a major foundation (CDF) and served as a grunt on an important and historical Washington commission (Watergate).  And of course she has done significant and productive policy time in a governor's mansion, the White House and in her own right in Congress.  That's terrific training.

    Parent

    Not Sure (3.00 / 1) (#203)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:42:17 PM EST
    Why you think I have a problem with her skills in negotiating with R's.  I think both of their work with R's is fine, that is a positive. IMO, both of them are weak on progressive issues, particularly regarding the war and crime. And that is based on their votes and policy speeches, not bipartisanship dealmaking.

    And I certainly have zero love dust for either candidate. You on the other hand seem quite entranced. And I maintain that the experience talking point is empty. Nothing on your list could possibly make her a better president than McCain. No one knows what the secret formula of life experiences make for a better president. Arguing experience is just as empty as arguing for Change, they are both catchy phrases that when given some thought amount to nothing.

    Parent

    When Hillary said in the PA (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:48:19 PM EST
    debate that she's start withdrawing troops from Iraq in 60 days, no matter the advice from the generals, she put the lie to your point about the war.

    Parent
    Campaign Promises (1.00 / 1) (#215)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:17 PM EST
    Bla bla bla...... Obama said the same thing. If either of them actually carry out this promise, then we are off to Afghanistan for a real war there.

    It is hilarious that you would think that "she put the lie" to my point about the war.  You must be a real easy mark, if you take campaign promises as gospel, but I'll cut you slack for being in love.

    Parent

    baloney (none / 0) (#236)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:08:26 AM EST
    experience is quantifiable and she has more.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#245)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:14:37 AM EST
    So you are arguing a vote for McCain? Experience is quantifiable, but not the experience someone does not have, like being president. You cannot measure the experience that would make a good president, because it is an unknown.

    Parent
    According to the pundits (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by cygnus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:16 PM EST
    Obama's speech on Wright and race is one of the great documents in American history.  Now we're told it was just political hackery. How does that help the Transcendant One?

    lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:00:10 PM EST
    I don't know what's funnier, "one of the great documents" or the fact it's now "just political hackery" . . .   ;)

    Parent
    As someone (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by rnibs on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:17:23 PM EST
    on this site mentioned a week or so ago, Obama gave that speech to save himself.  That probably means that it's not a great document.  The greatness of a document is partly dependent upon the circumstances and political times under which it was given, and giving a speech to save one's posterior doesn't exactly create the atmosphere for 'great documents'.

    Parent
    Widening the credibility gap (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by xspowr on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:49:55 PM EST
    The problem for Obama with comments like this from his advisors, associates, and surrogates is that it reinforces the meme that he's not honest with voters about his true positions. With Goolsbee, we get that he's just kidding about his public opposition to NAFTA. With Power, we get that he's not really going to follow his publicly stated Iraq withdrawal plan. Now, we have Wright implying that Obama's denunciations of his pastor's controversial statements are just politics and without substance. Not good.

    It's (none / 0) (#77)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:16:17 PM EST
    amazing, but he's honestly transparent in just how not transparent he really is.

    This is blistering.

    It will be all over for the next few days.  Lordy.

    Parent

    BTD, you say that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:50:02 PM EST
    joined the church for political reasons.
    In my opinion, that makes him even MORE liable, politically, for what Wright says. He is endorsing the political content of Wright's message.

    AS a politician (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    he should have known, especially is he was going to run for president, that his associations would come under scrutiny.

    My biggest problem was that he seems so careless about that.

    Parent

    Not that he was careless (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:58:46 PM EST
    But he seems offended if he gets asked about it?  If he didn't realize that while he claimed to be a "new kind of politician" it was still going to be the same old media and same old electorate?

    Parent
    Obama knew Wright would be radioactive (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    and disinvited him to his presidential announcement.


    Parent
    But he had him listed as (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:54:05 PM EST
    a member of some religious advisory board.

    Parent
    The AA religious advisory no less (4.00 / 1) (#202)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:41:43 PM EST
    It stuck me that a Unity candidate would have his religious advisory defined as such.

    Parent
    I don't know about that... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
    When Obama joined Trinity, Wright warned him that he was considered pretty controversial among the other black churches, but he joined anyway. You would think that at some point... like maybe when the church gave Farrakhan the lifetime achievment award, he would have figured out that this church will only cause him problems and followed Oprah's lead and quit the church.

    Parent
    um....no (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by progrocks on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    the church is popular, he wanted to be popular, as simple as that

    he never endorsed the political content of the message, i think you missed the meaning of politics in what BTD was saying

    Parent

    If he joined for political reasons, (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:58:21 PM EST
    rather than spiritual ones, then hold him to account for the politics of the church: the support of Hamas, the disgusting humping of Wright when talking about Clinton,etc.

    Parent
    Did Bill Moyers (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM EST
    ask him about THAT incident, I wonder?

    "Tell me Reverend, what message were you trying to get across to your flock by criticizing Bill and Hillary Clinton by pretending to have sex with your podium?"

    Parent

    The Rev. Wright (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by litigatormom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST
    did not. have. sex. with that podium, Ms. Podiumsky....

    Parent
    I'd not seen that until after I read (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:56:58 PM EST
    what he'd said. That is the footage that took me over the edge.  I mean, everything else too.  I am all for dissent. I am all for questioning entrenched ideas about race and class (and maybe even one day gender) in our country. But the things that he said are beyond forgiveness. They are just wrong.

    Obama went to the church for popularity and to have credence in the black community.  It worked. That is all there is to it. I don't even think (even with the lofty evangelical rhetoric) that Obama is remotely religious.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    It was not an endorsement of the political message.

    Parent
    I have enormous respect for you BTD (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:42:29 PM EST
    but I cannot go there.

    If he joined for political reasons then he will have to deal with the political message of the pastor and his church. being popular was obviously far more important to Obama than going into the primary race without questionable associations. Obama should have known better. After all, he's a politician who has been running for office most of his career.

    Parent

    now that we got that squared away, what was (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:55:04 PM EST
    that squawking point by Obama supporters?

    That he's a change candidate, the kind you can believe in. Uh, something is wrong now.

    I cannot reconcile the two. Didn't he say he wasn't like the rest, didn't take lobby money yada yada?

    He should throw those signs away, because he isn't the unity candidate, or the change candidate. Maybe he's the cable guy! (-;

    My comment on Wright's statement (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    He's selling jesus and redemption with a message of hate.  It's a megachurch.  It provides some value to the community (as does any megachurch), but it is what it is.  He's a filthy rich pastor, just like any filthy rich pastor in this country.

    It's nice to see him make this wonderful distinction between making statements as pastors and making statements as politicians.  Of speaking to different audiences.  Do I believe him?  Of course not.  His worshippers are voters and he knows exactly what he's doing.   They're not different audiences.  They're the SAME audience.

    So what keeps him from making political statements about the Clintons within the context of religion?  Nothing.

    Or what keeps an Obama rally from feeling like a church congregation?  Nothing.

    I don't know.  

    The man is a joke.  I don't forget.  The best he can do at this point is say this:  "Listen, I was caught up in the heat of this primary race and I said some things from the pulpit that I regret."

    And then we can move on.

    I like the way Wright condemns (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:16:27 PM EST
    "rich white people" but has no problem having Trinity pay 10million + to have a mansion built in a white, gated community for his retirement.

    Parent
    Very cynical (none / 0) (#85)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
    and I totally agree!

    Parent
    Your comment (none / 0) (#235)
    by BrandingIron on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:25:19 AM EST

    reminded me of the song Selling Jesus by Skunk Anasie.  It'd be nice to see a video cut with that song and Wright/Obama.

    Parent
    Say what you have to say (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Sunshine on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:03:45 PM EST
    WRIGHT: It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor...
    Then:
    The KKK says what they have to say..
    The CCC says what they have to say..

    Is this a rule for Obama and does it make everything OK?  I sure hope it's not a rule for all politicians...

    Let's be honest (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:07:14 PM EST
    Obama joined the church and got close with Wright to get street cred on the South Side.

    Now he needs mainstream credibility so he kicks Wright to the curb.

    Wright knew the score from the beginning, and he knows it now.

    Obama Can't Afford to Keep Wright Locked Up (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    ...They need to rehab his image. As it stands, that alone, will sink him if he is then nominee. He needs to be portrayed less like Farrakhan and more like Martin Luther King. The problem, of course, is that Wright used to be a member of NOI, gave Farrakhan the lifetime achievment award, and echoes alot of Farrakhan's more controversial rhetoric. It's a very risky strategy for Obama, but something he must do.

    My best guess (none / 0) (#86)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:20:02 PM EST
    is that they can't keep Wright off the air.  LOL*  He's not under lock and key.

    His ego got the best of him.  He feels wounded.

    Obama should suggest he and Bill get together.  :)

    Parent

    Frankly (none / 0) (#222)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:33:51 PM EST
    I don't see how this could be done unless Wright somehow can take back all the horrible things he has said.

    Parent
    Mr. Obama Meet Mr. Bus (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Mrwirez on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:15:27 PM EST
    The good Reverend is Throwing BHO UNDER said bus. I can see the headlines already.
    "Reverend Wright, the gift that keeps on giving"  
    (not mine)

    He may think that (none / 0) (#178)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:22:15 PM EST
    he is simply returning the favor.

    Parent
    Barack the non-Messiah (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:16:11 PM EST
    Comment for the commenters, not BTD.

    Of course he's just a politician. Everyone knows the game even if they don't admit it, except sometimes -- as I've stated before -- anti-Obama folks tend to believe the hype to a greater degree (and with greater frequency) just so they can keep deflating him. You can't deflate a balloon, after all, unless you blow it up first. But generally with Obama supporters it's not a binary choice, it's the idea of getting lied to a little less and shaking up a broken system a bit with a politician who's mostly without the standard ton of DC baggage. It's also the idea of the appearance of change as a signal to the outside world. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You're perhaps wondering why y'all don't hear Obama supporters saying this? Wondering why the speech bubbles on your cartoon versions of Obama supporters never say such things, and are always seemingly so gullible and naive...

    Would you go over to Dailykos (boo, hiss, etc) and talk about how maybe Hillary is a little untrustworthy, a little calculated? Maybe a little bit suspect in her backbone based on the Iraq vote. Maybe a bit predisposed to pandering and exaggeration? Would you talk like that to a known Obamaphilic person or group? I doubt it

    So Barack isn't the Messiah, or even a new candidate (at least in the way portrayed by the acolytes, a former community organizer and former constitutional law prof is new enough for me, but I digress). Oh well, better luck next time. And Hillary's record isn't so much a fighter as an appeaser. Oh well, the boxing gloves were a great prop for an underdog. Whatever, it's branding, and salesmen and supporters alike don't diss their product. Don't get too bent out of shape about it. And certainly don't act shocked (shocked!) every time you find a counterexample to the campaign branding. Or do act shocked. Whatever. It's silly.

    Example. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:22:48 PM EST
    If you want an example of freakish emotional allegiance to a charlatan who actually believes the hype about himself, and in whom followers place all hope of salvation (in this case, of the media) in his unworthy hands, there IS an example: Keith Olbermann.

    So I mean, it is possible to have a psychosis unrecognized by charlatan or follower. Obama just really isn't there yet. Or anymore. Take your pick.

    Parent

    You know you can't write that (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:32:34 PM EST
    at Daily Kos.

    You think I can not rip Lou Dobbs here?

    Parent

    I have written that! (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:52:00 PM EST
    Or at least I wrote that he's a hack. I also called his show a joke. I've done that a couple times. There were crickets. Maybe a couple recs.

    I'll try to find the link. There are so many people in Olbermann threads calling OTHER people hacks that it's very hard to find my comments using most search threads.

    Maybe I'll author an anti-Olbermann diary soon. I haven't watched him in forever, though, so it would mostly source you and DailyHowler, I guess.

    Parent

    Here we are... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:25 PM EST
    Here, from about 3 weeks ago.

    Comment #1, in reference to Rachel Maddow taking the helm of Countdown on April 3rd or 4th:

    Hopefully [Maddow] can dial down the hackery.

    Comment #2, posted immediately after comment #1, as a clarification:

    Just to be clear I'm saying that Keith has turned into a hack. He's constantly hyperventilating, constantly "asking" leading questions so leading (and so pro-Obama) that it's become embarrassing. As a fellow Barack cheerleader, he's amazing. But, seriously, he's taken his editorial leeway too far and Countdown is a joke as a news program. It's just his cable news op-ed space.

    Comment #3, in response to some other comment:

    ...I think his program is a joke in that it's comedy. And so it's literally a joke. However, if it's masquerading as a news program that's being a joke in the other pejorative sense.

    As far as him being a hack, when a guy goes for the easy laugh or the melodramatic hook all the time instead of letting the material speak for itself, I start to think of that word, so that's my reasoning.

    Grand total of 5 recs.


    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    This diary is tells you what Daily Kos community  is now.  

    Parent
    That Diary Is Hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    But then I was never a true member of the DKOS community so I don't feel the loss of that community as I know others must.

    Kansas a swing state?  It's never gone Democrat in any presidential campaign in my lifetime and I was born during the Johnson Administration (Lyndon, not Andrew).  I don't give much credence to GE polls this far out, but SUSA has Obama down 54-37, which is almost exactly the same thing they have for McCain-Clinton (54-36).

    But enough with the hilarity, the telling thing about that diary is how brilliant the Clinton people have been at talking about the popular vote and claiming she leads it if all states are counted.  It's brilliant because it forces the Obama folks to explicitly state that Florida and Michigan don't count.  Whereas before they'd just leave them out and if you brought up Florida and Michigan, they'd just shoo you off, "he leads even if you count those."  Now, they have to defend not counting votes.  Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Watching those two now being hacks (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:12:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I do it right here (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:31:44 PM EST
    I don't have to go anywhere.

    I can tell you that Hillary supporters accept it, at least from me, because they KNOW I try to be fair about both and about the Media.

    You think they enjoy me saying Obama is more electable?

    You think they enjoyed when I ripped Bill Clinton and an assortment of Clinton surrogates for any manner of things?

    I honestly find it hard to believe you believe what you wrote in that comment. Daily Kos is a cesspool of Hilary Hate and you must know it.

    you cannot compare what is said about Obama here to that. You just can't.

    Parent

    Thank you. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by sarahfdavis on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    That is all true.

    I'm a proud member of the "dry **ssy demographic" as they have so kindly written on KOS but I even prefer your site to the pro Hillary sites. It feels like a little teeny tiny corner of reality.

    I used to be a KOS, TPM, HUFFpost, etc daily visitor but the sexism, misogyny, hypocrisy and hatred made me see our party a lot differently.

    It's been very healthy, actually.

    For the first time I'm able to understand how republicans see us and that is a good thing in my opinion. They are not all evil freaks to me anymore.

    Thanks to all of you for this site and your persistent demand for calm in the midst of partisans gone wild!


    Parent

    Considered separately. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:19 PM EST
    I agree that there is no BTD figure on Dkos. It's a continual disappointment. Both your specific absence and the more general absence of someone like you who goes against the grain. And yells at users. On the front page.

    Caveat: your posts are mostly critical of Obama, however, and that shouldn't be ignored. It's important that you're critical of him while still viewing him as more electable, but the criticism is there. At least it's more fair than others'.

    However, I don't agree that Talkleft is, b/c of your presence, not comparable in tone and anti-Obama clowning to the anti-Clinton clowning at Dailykos. I see no appreciable difference. Dkos has a greater volume, but it has a greater volume overall. Also, Talkleft has a MUCH more aggressive admin-level user punishment and overall user control system (are there even diaries here?). So, it's almost apples to oranges. But I'm not going to waste my time quoting user after user on both sites, so feel free to disagree.

    Parent

    Here's the key (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    "Talkleft has a MUCH more aggressive admin-level user punishment and overall user control system"

    Indeed there is. And I agree that is why. but it IS.

    "(are there even diaries here?)."

    Yes, but impossible to find and you need permission from Jeralyn.

    "So, it's almost apples to oranges."

    Agreed.

    Parent

    Well one can (none / 0) (#115)
    by hookfan on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:45:19 PM EST
    but only if one is speaking as a politician =).

    Parent
    speaking only for myself (none / 0) (#242)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:00:42 AM EST
    I do not mind that you say those things about the Clintons, I just don't agree with you all the time.  However I do appreciate that you can look at all of this dispassionnately and give analysis even if I do not think you always hit the mark.

    Parent
    Here we go again. (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:39:33 PM EST
    ...it's the idea of getting lied to a little less and shaking up a broken system a bit with a politician who's mostly without the standard ton of DC baggage. It's also the idea of the appearance of change as a signal to the outside world. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    You give him far too much credit.  A dem administration represents change, no matter who wins the nomination.  Obama will be business as usual, especially with the entrenched politicians backing him.

    It will be business as usual, and what does he bring to the table to get necessary policies enacted?

    Parent

    Maybe it's been too long (none / 0) (#116)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:46:06 PM EST
    since we've had a Dem president for us to remember that when a Dem is president, things are so much, much, much better.  Forget a broken system.  When we have a Dem president maybe we'll remember a bit more clearly exactly how repulsive Republicans and their cowardly Dem friends are.  The broken system IS Republicans.  Imagine, for instance, what a Dem budget would look like?  Obama or Clinton.  It would be so much better than what we have now.  

    Republicans are still the problem.  Obama gives them too much love, and leads his surrogates (Kerry on mandates, for instance) to do the same.  

    Parent

    It's been too long. (none / 0) (#148)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    These past seven years have seemed like seventy.  Bush did a lot of damage.

    Parent
    Your attack on Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:34:11 PM EST
    Isn't any more acceptable when it's dressed up in a lame attempt to admit Obama isn't perfect.


    Parent
    Heh... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:47:12 PM EST
    ...reality is always lame and paradoxically less real when your psychology wants a cartoon.

    Parent
    Here's some reality for you (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:55:00 PM EST
    They are both politicians.

    One is better prepared than the other.  

    If you wanted to call Clinton an appeaser you really didn't have to establish any bona fides.

    Just get out there and do it so people can take you at face value.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:09:39 PM EST
    ...if you're the type that looks for simplistic analysis, or cartoonish versions of support, your ability to judge what is and is not a "face value" comment is going to be fatally compromised. I'm sorry if complexity looks like guile to you.

    Parent
    You're not even being complex (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:17:00 PM EST

    Here's how you can put it if you want and then it won't be an attack anymore, and it will still embrace the complexity you long for.

    She's a fighter but she also knows when to pick her fights.

    Anyone using the word "appeaser" isn't interested in complexity.


    Parent

    Context. (none / 0) (#220)
    by Addison on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:29:37 PM EST
    I was clearly framing that in terms of candidate branding vs. the sad (for the respective supporters) reality. For both candidates. Barack isn't new in the way his branding says, it's a playbook. Hillary isn't a fighter in the way she says, look at the Iraq vote. Etc. etc. etc.

    "She's a fighter but she also knows when to pick her fights" is merely an extension of the branding, and my point was to point out the unreality of branding. It's like criticizing McCain's branding by saying, "He's a maverick but he also knows how to work with the system." That's just more branding. Again, you're looking for a takedown or hagiography of a candidate, your mind is wandering on that axis, but I'm talking about something else.

    Parent

    I agree it's the branding... (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:00:06 PM EST
    One problem for Sen. Obama is that, as David Axelrod pointed out, the minute he looks like a conventional candidate, Sen. Obama loses.

    Add to it that the Obama branding effort doesn't offer evidence that he would deliver on his messaging. And his defense when attacked politically is conventional and not very effective, IMO. The shininess of the Hope and Change candidate wore off not so much for his associations, but for how Sen. Obama responded by dissembling and trying to bob and weave. He acted like a typical politician when he'd been saying he was not a typical politician. Big mistake.

    An example is the Michigan re-vote. the unexpected and delightful thing to have done was to push forcefully to rectify the situation, ignoring any peril to his candidacy. Sen. Obama would have acted like the new politician he claimed to be and built his candidacy on. And he would've won support from many quarters.

    Conversely, Sen. Clinton's brand was severely damaged when her positioning fell of the face of the earth. Her campaign sucked the big one when she started out. I understand why she chose the hard@ss positioning---she was thinking of the typical GOP attacks on Dems as soft on national secuirty. But she could have easily grabbed the positioning of change and beat Obama to it.

    But she has remade her campaign and herself, and had to do it as she went along. That's hard. Really hard, even if the media doesn't hate you. She has re-introduced herself, re-positioned as an underdog (I'm stunned, but I love it), and re-fashioned her messaging based on the immediate feedback of her target market---voters.

    It appears that the junior senator from New York knows how to listen. And it doesn't hurt that her brain is too big for her head. She's really good at explaining complex policy in everyday language. It may not be uplifting, but it sticks.

    Hillary 2.0: She took something people hated about her---her toughness and intelligence---and re-packaged those brand characteristics on behalf of us. "Don't give up on me and I won't give up on you."

    Will it last? If she doesn't overreach, then yes. Overreaching will doom her. And she has problems with surrogates.

    Not as bad as Sen. Obama, though. M<onths ago I was listening to one of his surrogates and I was wincing. I turned to my fab GF and said, "His puppets are going to kill him."<p> I'd like to see Sen. Obama get back some of his charm and equanimity. I don't know if he'll be able to pivot and grow from this rough patch. if he doesn't, then he's done in this election cycle. And depending on how badly he implodes, his political career may be over. That would be a loss.

    McCain's brand isn't damaged---yet. I don't know what his secondary messaging is going to be in the fall, but with the right attacks, it could be torn up fairly easily.

    Parent

    It should be interesting to see whether (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:22:34 PM EST
    Obama is confronted with Wright's remarks, and how he responds to them.

    Starting with the debate last week, Obama's brand as the candidate who can transcend politics and bring the country together began to lose its luster, and it got worse as we got closer to the election.  Wright may be trying to humanize himself, so that there is not as much power in the demonizing ads we've already seen, but in doing so, he has kind of thrown Obama under the bus, hasn't he?

    What I don't get is why no one ever asks Obama what he did as a member of that church to change anything, to bring people together, to help people see beyond the forces of division.  What committees was he on?  What kind of outreach did he, personally, do?

    And people thought Bill Clinton was slick...

    The problem is (none / 0) (#118)
    by themomcat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    confronted by who? The corporate controlled MSM adores him, he has limited his press conferences and won't debate. There is a pattern here that smacks of the "Karl Rove Play Book".

    Parent
    agree with your sentiment BTD (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    and think in the long run Obama is better off being off the pedestal sooner rather than later. I still say this primary has been good for the party and for the eventual candidate. The only bad part of the primary has been the DNC and part power brokers sticking their noses where they don't belong. Dean and Brazil, I'm looking at you.

    Let the fight it out. When the dust settles we know a lot more about the candidates and about ourselves. It's all good. Have faith in the democratic process and the voters. Please.

    I'm no politician, but (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by mg7505 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:23:49 PM EST
    Hillary should: (1) not discuss this incident, and (2) arrange more media interviews with the Good Rev. Wright. Just like Obama did to her when she went through the gaffe phase -- stay silent, and just let him keep digging.

    That's pretty damning (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by facta non verba on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    It's a tough question no doubt but Reverend Wright has just undone the whole meme of Obama being "new and different." His Pastor of 20 years has just confessed that Obama is just another politician. I am definitely tuning into Bill Moyers tomorrow night.

    Have you seen the ads the GOP has produced for North Carolina?

    anti-Obama Ads in North Carolina

    One is by the NC GOP and the other by a 527. They start running tomorrow.

    I'm looking forward to watching the interview (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:50 PM EST
    I was wondering why we never got to hear from Rev. Wright.  The only persons who I would trust to do the interview were either Bill Moyers or Jim Lehrer.  
    I probably agree with more of what Wright believes, short of the conspiracy of AIDS and a few other ideas he has, than the rest of the country. (And humping the pulpit)  I'd just like to hear him personally.  I've had enough of the media defining him.

    On another note, I started out beleiving Obama was a politician, and there isn't anything that has suprised me so far.  Politicians lie.  Big deal.  It's what kinds of lies they tell that make a difference to me.  Slight exagerations to make a story more interesting or eventful.  (Bosnia, named after Sir Hillary, Kennedys helped get Obama Sr. into the USA, gave anti-war speech when running for US Senate)  Big whoop.  Lying to get a country convinced that war is an answer --  that's not forgivable.

    That question is a gem (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    Moyers is a great journalist.  Moyers is almost never combative, and can get answers without spin.

    Perhaps Wright noticed that . . . (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Trickster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:41:07 PM EST
    Obama disowned him in every possible way than saying "I disown him."  He disowned a vague and indeterminate number of his statements, called him a crazy uncle, said that if Wright hadn't either retired or apologized Obama would've quit his church, kicked him off his campaign, said he has never read the church bulletins, and hasn't been caught within a mile of that church since this thing broke.

    watching it now on hardball (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:53:49 PM EST
    they're showing clips of the moyers interview and discussing it. Chris and the panel are all agreeing this is digging the hole deeper. The "he's saying what he says because he's a politician" part is really troubling to Chris.

    A bit earlier Chris actually said the dems can't win the GE without PA and that's a serious problem for Obama. And he repeated Obama's bad point he made earlier that Obama has to win Indiana and that may decide the election. That's the point Carville kept repeating the other day, "I agree with Obama that Indiana will be the tie breaker."

    Something tells me this will continue to be a bad week for Obama.

    and... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    he said it's very possible Hillary will win this in August partly because of the PA issue. Wow.

    Parent
    news at 11, KO's head just exploded :-) (n/t) (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:55:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Do they (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    just enjoy being crazy??

    Not to say I don't like this line about Indiana.  Seems like Obama is becoming his own Bill Clinton.  

    Parent

    Here we go! (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:33 PM EST
    :)

    Incoming!

    Parent

    I've Thought I Felt a Shift in the Media Narrative (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:09:15 PM EST
    If Obama loses Indiana (which he could very well win), then watch Matthews and many other media fan boys turn on him.  I've said this before, but in return for their love, they've asked one thing of Obama, just one thing, that he beat the b*tch.  The minute he either does that or they decide he very well may not do that, they'll have no use for him.  They'll be even more merciless if they think he's going to lose to Clinton.  He'll be the girly man who couldn't beat Hillary.  Then they'll go back to their true love, the REAL MAN, John McCain for the job.  Not that these boys actually know anything about real men.

    And to be clear, their turning on Obama won't be any fairer or more right than what they've done to Clinton for the past year.  I admit, given how much the Obama campaign has fed the beast with 20-year-old right-wing smears, there will be a moment or two of Schadenfreude, but in the end these people aren't anyone's democrat's friend.  They are part of what's so terribly broken in Washington.

    Parent

    Matthews didn't know his state. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:37:02 PM EST
    He's a freaking lunatic.

    Parent
    Tweety is all over this tonight (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:56:50 PM EST
    They just played an excerpt from the Wright interview.  Tucker Carlson opined (and Tweety chimed in to agree) that Obama really believes in Wright's philosophies and this will be a big problem for him in the campaign.

    Tweety and his roundtable are saluting Hillary Clinton now.

    "Clinton has proved herself to be a helluva good politician.  She's Norma Rae!"

    I feel faint.

    Here are the smelling salts. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    I don't trust these guys, so don't get too excited.  :-)

    Parent
    I'm not excited (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:12:25 PM EST
    and I don't trust them.  I just find it extremely interesting b/c this kind of puts the kibosh on the theory of Obama as media darling.

    Parent
    If the general opinion turns out to (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:11:53 PM EST
    be that Obama really believes in Wright's views, the party just cannot nominate this guy.  Talk about a McGovern style rout in November!


    Parent
    From Tweety's commentary (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:24:13 PM EST
    (not that I trust him) he seems to infer that in his interview on Moyers, Wright implies that he does his job as a minister and Obama does his as a politician, so he understands why Obama has to publicly disavow him.  

    Like Hillary Clinton when pressed by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes, I don't know what Obama's religious beliefs are, but it's going to create an extremely troubling perception to many voters.

    And this is the guy the DNC are pushing as the nominee.

    Parent

    Never trust Tweety either (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:34:24 PM EST
    This could play out terribly over the next week or so, or it may calm down and be fine.  Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

    Thanks for taking a Tweety bullet so we didn't have to watch.  :-)

    Parent

    You're welcome =) (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:40:41 PM EST
    I hope somebody here took a bullet for me and watched KO tonight. I'm curious to see if his big fat head is exploding.

    Parent
    Norma Rae (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:12:12 PM EST
    Rocky
    Paulette Revere.

    It's getting as deep as when Obama was the next JFK, Reagan, MLK.  :)

    Parent

    Maybe I'm naive (none / 0) (#175)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:19:46 PM EST
    but I think the slimy MSM genuinely admire toughness.  Hillary has it in spades.

    Of course, there are no doubt other factors at work, but it seems to me that they placed Obama so high on a pedestal and they're angry that their idol has clay feet.

    Parent

    Can Hillary on the Christ Mathews Show (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by felizarte on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST
    be far behind?  This would be a real corner turn. Her father's spirit must be looking out for his little girl.

    Parent
    Remember (none / 0) (#146)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:04:16 PM EST
    Tweety may be running for Senate from PA - he needs Hillary voters to support him and we have looonnnngggg memories.  That's why he might start changing his tune a bit.

    But I'm cynical, so what do I know?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:11:10 PM EST
    This is bitterness that Obama once again was unable to knock Clinton off.  If he can't do it, they'll move on to McCain.  Their love was never about Obama, it was about hating Clinton.

    Parent
    Ooops (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:12:10 PM EST
    Subject should've been "That's not all."  It was No before I rewrote the comment.  Sorry.

    Parent
    You're very likely right (none / 0) (#155)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    The cynical answer is usually the correct one!

    Also, as a journalist, he smells blood in the water after the recent Obama campaign screw-ups.  

    Is Tweety running as a Dem or a Repub?

    Parent

    Oh...My...Gawd................................! (none / 0) (#165)
    by magisterludi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:12:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    campaign get DUMBER by the day.  I pulled this from a Republican site.....this Axelrod speakingspeaking....

    "white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years...[Democrats] haven't solely relied on the demographic."-David Axelrod, Obama Campaign Strategist.

    Axelrod's comments on NPR (don't you just love it?) yesterday have been already been pounced upon by the Clinton campaign. Speaking in North Carolina (from a flatbed truck in a baseball field mind you), President Clinton told a crowd:

    "Today her opponent's campaign strategist said, `Well, we don't really need these working class people to win, half the time they vote for Republicans anyways. I will tell you something -- America needs you to win, and therefore Hillary wants your support, and I hope you will help her in this primary in North Carolina."

    Obamamania! aside, the Illinois Senator needs to win in the Rust Belt in order to become the next president of the United States. The candidate, or his surrogates, making statements that trash these voters in each successive primary is not going to help achieve that end."

    They're not dumb... (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Jim J on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    this is what Obama Nation actually believes.

    Go to dKos for heaven's sake, they'll tell you point blank this is about sticking it to knuckledragging gunowners and churchgoers and PC users and old people in general and the Clintons in particular.

    They have never been savvy, so the Pa. asskicking has them so spooked they are openly airing their classist views.

    They really don't think there's anything wrong with elitism. That's one reason they're so hard to reach.

    Parent

    Surely they don't really believe that load (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:24:03 PM EST
    of crap!  Maybe the fan boyz in Obama Nation but Axelrod can't believe it.  Bill Clinton would never have won without some percentage of those working class white men.


    Parent
    you have to give credit (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:34:54 PM EST
    to Clinton she turned herself from Queen into a populist hero of sorts. Give her a round of applause.

    She finally got round to understand what Edwards was hinting at (failing in case) and then embody it in a large state campaign.

    less cash, economic populism, tough defense stances, media abuse and she won hands down.

    Parent

    That's Who She Started Out As (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:43:38 PM EST
    When she was in Yale Law School and at the Children's Defense Fund.  She kind of wore down the edges over the years for political reasons.  Kind of fun to watch her figure out that now she needs to go back to where she started to be successful politically.  

    Parent
    I'm a card carrying red... (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:30:52 PM EST
    ...and  even I know where to push the socialism and where to push the traditional son of the soil stuff.

    disdain for Firearms and God seem like thay are not places where you wnat to go if you want to have UHC or a moderately sane foreign policy.

    I never thought the left in the US was so one dimensional ands crassly and willfully blind.

    I suppose I was used to seeing Clinton and Gore finesse left wing policy and traslate it into American English.

    Obama took Frank's theory, misunderstood it utterly, and then repeated his misread back to a  bunch of clueless millionaires.

    Frank was suggesting that Dems embrace populism and avoid faddish cultural battles. Pick a Presidential candidate who is about to relate directly to working class voters and translate policy into something that means concrete improvement in peoples day to day life.

    Obama completely misunderstood the whole point of the book. It's almost wilful blindless.

    Obama is only interested in cultural battles...and so are most of his online supporters.

    Parent

    You were (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:36:19 PM EST
    and so was I.  But Clinton was brilliant in that regard.

    Parent
    used to seeing Clinton operate? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:39:25 PM EST
    Yeah we were very spoiled. He made it look easy.

    Parent
    Oddly enough (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:45:09 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton may have understood Frank's book pretty well.  Never thought people would come to see her as the working class warrior, but PA seems to have done just that.


    Parent
    :) The Campaign may need to regroup here (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST
    I KNEW she'd leap on that one in a heartbeat.

    He handed it to her.  They are imploding.

    Parent

    If I've Said It Once, I've Said It A Million Times (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:13:46 PM EST
    I will never understand insulting voters as a campaign strategy.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    this is really OT, and as such, it should be deleted, but hopefully some of you can help me before that happens.

    Is this a pro-HRC video?  I think it is, but I thought I should ask some HRC supporters for conformation.

    HaHaHa (none / 0) (#186)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    It looks like it could be, but I'll bet her campaign doesn't know about it.   Funny though  :-)


    Parent
    That was HILarious! (none / 0) (#190)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    My favorite line - the last one (so as not to give it away).

    Parent
    To my eyes (none / 0) (#214)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:56:50 PM EST
    it is, yes.

    Parent
    You might have just exposed (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:19:44 PM EST
    The pathway Obama has out of this.   But Wright isn't explicit.  

    A pastor can't just say "I'm a pastor, I tell people what they want to hear, I don't even belief half of what I say."

    I mean imagine if he did.

    Would that be a pathway for Obama out of this.  And would Wright really ever go that far?  Not in a million years.

    Also, what that does is it shifts animosity NOT onto a pastor, but onto an entire community that wants to hear those things.

    Damn.  That would just make things worse.

    That won't work for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:44:04 PM EST
    because Wright also said he speeks to the people of God about the things of GOD, implying that his message gets it's truth from God and Obama is just a politician.

    Parent
    Great so his god (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:50:43 PM EST
    believes Clinton did black people dirty like he did Monica?

    Is that a truth he got from God?

    Great.   Maybe his God has chosen Obama and just wants to get a diary on the wreck list at dailykos.com.

    Parent

    Bet Obama won't agree to a debate (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:23:35 PM EST
    ever again, after this statement.  McCain will have to debate himself!

    You mean... (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:36:33 PM EST
    Obama is not a transcended, transformative, post partisan change agent?  Pheww.  Politician is so much easier.  

    Good grief. (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by DCDemocrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    Wow.  Rev. Wright gives an interview right on the heals of Obama's humiliating loss in Pennsylvania.  Gawd, man, I swear.  When it rains, it pours.

    This is the end for my party in 2008- (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by kenosharick on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    only hope is that the supers do what they were created to do- SAVE THE PARTY; NOMINATE HILLARY!!!
    Uh Oh (3.00 / 1) (#225)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:52:02 PM EST
    Isn't one of the signs of a cult to think that the end is near....

    just saying.

    Parent

    you are very funny squeaky. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by kenosharick on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:58:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama is unelectable (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by ig on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:14:07 AM EST
    Once it is public knowledge what Obama's church of 20 years practises, Cone's Liberation Theology, its over.

    Could this be the most outrageous (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:48:37 PM EST
    thing Wright has ever said? Obama a politician?
    That's too rough for me!

    G-D Bill Moyers! (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:31:08 PM EST
    The chickens are coming home to roost!

    Parent
    what promoted obama (none / 0) (#240)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:29 AM EST
    sheer anticlintonics...

    rememeber last year, the dems knew Her Royal Clinton was inevitable , so quite a few , me included wre readying either to vote MCcAIN,, vote blank or abstain. Then came OBAMA,who is a democrat, who is not related in no way with the Clinton gang, who is appealling. A politician, yes after all, he got to be after all he was elected,isnt it.
    So given a choice, between the devil, the deep blue sea and  a raft, we have chosen the raft, not perfect
    but being not a republican and avoidid to have to votre clinton MAKE SHIM THE BEST EVER CANDIDATE.
    I would like to know if a reserach has been done on the dems who will give or take enever ever votre for a clinton again
    one might be surprised that obama fans are before being his fans a strong group of anticlintons
    might be interesting to see their number because the win will play into those depending on them relenting or not, Mc Cain will be elected.

    Rev. Wright: Obama A Politician | 240 comments (240 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment