After watching the clips from the news services all I can say is "should woulda coulda"

Barack:

Shoulda never gone into his church

Woulda been nice to know this before his campaign started

He made one really good observation: "many of you must be new to politics"

Everyone, or most everyone, keeps talking about Obama's relationship with Wright as his pastor. Obama says that he hasn't heard Wright's controversial views, but always, from what I remember, in that context.

But what about as a mentor.  Doesn't that suggest a more personal relationship? I actually looked up the word mentor and the first defination says a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.

How would it be possible, under that defination and if Wright was in fact his mentor, for Obama not to have heard Wright's rants. It seems to me that in this context Obama would be quite familar with Wright's positions.

For me, the mentor relationship, if it was as defined above, bothers me more than the pastor relationship.

Still thinking it thru.

My perspective on the gas price supply/demand conservation issue is still something that I think isn't represented on leftist/progressive blogs.  What I feel is the bottom line is that all the people who overconsume gas won't be affected by even 5 or 6 dollar a gallon gas.  They're already part of the America that Edwards refers to that can very easily absorb another 50 bucks per week either way.  Yeah.  They'll be annoyed.  But it really won't change their behavior.  But it will hurt people with less money, who do have to a different set of decisions in their lives.

So I should re-establish a different point, the gas tax holiday is not a solution, and it may even be bad policy (most especially so if it was implemented long term), but I don't think hurting poor people is the solution here either.

I thought progressives were committed to finding solutions that make rich people pay their fair share and expand opportunity for the more economically disadvantaged out there.

People can educate me more about why gas taxes are necessary for a long term solution, but you're never going to convince me that that sort of solution, while it might curtail gas consumption by sheer brute force of will, that that solution isn't regressive.

It is regressive.

I like Obama, and hope he runs for 2016.

I think the likes of Kos killed his chances, not Wright. The Kos types made him bigger than life, god like... that's not support, that's worship, and so any weakness Obama might have was exaggerated. Kos types alienated HRC supporters in the process which was very divisive.

Now, it so happens that, even though I'm very pro-Hillary and becoming evermore anti-Obama, I think the whole Wright thing is a bum deal. It's guilt by association and nothing he's said (that I've heard) hasn't been said by leftists before going back at least to Vietnam.  So old lefties should examine their consciences.

What impresses me is that there are even some talking heads defending Obama. If this had been Hillary's pastor, well, one can only imagine what would be coming her way.

Sorry, Obama fans, but he still has to earn voters on his own and he's not nearly as Charismatic (tm) or Inspiring (tm) as is required.

His magical speeches are mad-libs from better people who worked for their reputations and suffered for their causes. They don't deserve to have their work and their words chop shopped for slogans to draw traffic into Obama's concession tent at the fair.

Obama and his fans are all about entitlement before work. Even his kingmakers in the blogs, Dems and media are more about trying to work the spigots of the tasty stuff rather than keeping an eye on why the "endless" flow got down to a trickle.

Now the whine is going up that Clinton "ruined" Obama's chances by not giving over her hard-earned juice and the panicky people who have seen what's happening are trying Operation Transfusion one more time before it's apparent to everyone.

So: they blow off the Kososphere with that Faux News thing. They resurrect a crucified Wright; "We can't control him!"  And, for good measure, they oppose the gas tax hiatus supported by McCain and Hillary.  (This last one has nothing to do with being right or wrong, just playing into the elitist meme -- "we don't feel your pain, see?")

Suddenly, in a week Obama's 10 points down just in time for Indiana and NC.  A week later, a humble Obama announces that his campaign will be "suspended" until the convention.

(And then the fat lady starts singing.)

There is no other way to interpret the last 72 hours of political events.

I hate being in chronic pain.  I hate not having a doctor who would be able to afford me the right consults in order to pinpoint the source of my chronic and my migratory pain, or being in a crappy system that allows the poor and without income to sit here and suffer because specialists cost too much.

My migratory pain is the worst.  As in, it'll come on, hard, and let me suffer through a day's worth of not being able to get around and headaches.  It's always in my knees...I've had this stuff since I was a toddler.  No one's ever been able to give me a real diagnosis...they thought it was rheumatoid arthritis, but I tested negative for that.  It's just a really strong pain in the knees that can spread throughout the entire bottom part of my legs and make me stomach sick (when it's really bad).  Days like this require at least two or three showers...the sensation of running water on my body helps some.  I'm on daily morphine (low dose) and Vicodin when it gets insufferable.

He's a friend so I patiently listened to his rantings and ravings.  But when he started screaming about Monica Lewinsky and how Hillary not leaving Bill was like Obama not leaving his church, I kind of zoned out.

I said some months ago that Obama might be the Billy Conn of Presidential politics.

(Billy Conn was a boxer who fought Joe Lewis.  He was winning for 12 rounds. In the thirteenth, he went for a knockout, and got knocked out himself.)

It was oddly worded in how it talked about who had the most votes, so I followed the link to Electoral Vote and surprise surprise, kos was misleading readers by careful word choice.  Yes, Obama beats clinton--but only if you include states that they both lose to mccain.  In fact, a link from the front page shows clinton beating mccain 291 to 237 and Obama losing to mccain 243 to 269.

Get an F150, park it in Indiana and accept Hills request for an unmoderated debate.

A few parts that stood out for me:

"I'm not surprised you're having trouble categorizing him," one of his aides says. "I don't think he's wedded to any ideological frame." With Obama, there is only the man himself -- his youth, his ease, his race, his claim on the new century. His candidacy is essentially a plea for voters to put their trust in his innate capacity for clarity and judgment. There is no Obama-ism, only Obama.

And

Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

[snip]

When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing -- for such a measured politician -- is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in there.

[snip]

What he has to offer, at the most fundamental level, is not ideology or even inspiration -- it is the Story, the feeling that he embodies, in his own, uniquely American history, a longed-for break from the past. "With Obama, it's all about his difference," says Joe Trippi, the Democratic consultant who masterminded Howard Dean's candidacy. "We see in him this hope that the country might be different, too."

Also, Nightline covered the Wright appearance at the NPC, showing some of the most controversial clips, and was less than positive about what this means for Obama and his campaign.  The dismissive, quietly angry and condescending tone I heard in his voice earlier in the day was reinforced by his expression and body language.  Really disturbing.

Anyhow, the quote blip that popped up on the TV from some unnamed Obama spokesperson was that "Wright is out for Wright."

Clinton supporter invited Wright

the piece says this:

I don't mean to suggest some kind of plot. Her agenda here seems to have been the same as Wright's: To protect the minister's reputation from, among others, Obama.

Why is it that liberals have consistently called themselves reality-based, truth-based, fact-based, tolerant, and non-racist, and used these values to hold ignorant, white, religious demagogues like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee in contempt, yet cannot bring themselves to do so with Wright? All over the lefty blogs (with this being the exception), all I see is excuses for Wright or outright agreement with him.

To my eyes and ears, there is no difference in the level of ignorance of Wright (bell curve, medical miseducation on HIV, racist theories about black kids' brains vs. white kids' brains, etc.) and that of the Falwells of the world.

I'm struck by a principle that is in play here that obviously was raised initially.  One principle about people that I've learned is that if someone is vicious and angry towards someone or something, even if we agree to a certain extent, then I can be sure one day that same intense negative attitude will be directed at me.  It appears that Wright has distanced HIMSELF from Obama!

I loved Hillary's line.  Perfect pitch.  "I wouldn't have personally attended that church, but I think it's wrong for the Republicans to politicize this."

One editorial today suggested Hillary should tell people that she hoped they are not voting for her becaue she's white.  As an afterthought, the author added that the revers MIGHT be true.  No kidding?  Well, the primary season made it clear that no discussion about the ramifications of winning 90% AA voter bloc could be discussed column without heated charges of racism.  Here's the downside of winning that much of the population:  It's obviously a race issue.  Equally obvious that means that here comes the Clyburns (who essentially accused everyone who didn't understand Wright of being racist yesterday) and Wrights to make SURE we all know.  This is a racial issue.

What a mess.  Good editorial today on this in the LA TIMES.

Say Clinton wins the nom and is pressured or chooses to put Obama in the VP slot -- and he accepts -- could he be so badly damaged by what we've learned thus far, with more possibly coming out, that he could bring down the whole ticket?

I have no special knowledge of new problems which might emerge; I only envision the ReThugs going bonkers against him, whether as P or VP candidate.

I may be too nervous about this -- but what do rest of you think?

However, just because Wright speaks with the press, does not mean that he speaks to the media. Perhaps Wright had a different audience in mind, one he could only reach with the megaphone that the media can provide him. Second, political and blogger analysts, the blight on this primary season, interpret Wright's actions entirely through the prism of who he supports for President--but is that a large enough frame? Why question Wright's loyalty to that which he holds most dear: the black church?

From reading upthread, when I put these two together, I am beginning to think that Rev. Wright is actually speaking out to African-Americans and signaling to them that Obama has effectively left the black church. His pointed statement to Moyer that "Obama is a politician" - in the context of his distancing from Wright - essentially cued his audience that Obama "will say and do anything to get elected." In this case, as Wright speaks it, the betrayal is Obama's.