I guess WSJ didn't get Markos' memo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:11:14 AM EST

As an elephant in the room for way too long, I had the audacity to campaign for Mayor on a Republican ticket once, giving me privy to the Republican handbook for winning elective office.

Now there's a scary read.

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

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

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

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

Republicans will find a way to make it not so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Republicans? Obama is toast.

by Marguerite Quantaine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:19:11 AM EST

are you on, and where can i get some? and i ask that in the nicest possible way.

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

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

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

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


by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:15:42 AM EST

I like coup.

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

by lambert on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:16:19 AM EST

at how easily the Obama supporters are convinced that the Wright troubles are hehind them.  It's the "one speech" thing all over again - in 2002 it was a speech on Iraq that Obama believes gives him the indelible stamp of good judgment, notwithstanding the actions or failures to act that followed, and now, it is one speech in Philadelphia which he - and supporters like Markos - believes has provided unparalleled leadership on matters of race.

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

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

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

by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:21:37 AM EST

According to William Kristol (no, I'm not a fan, but he has his pulse on the R's), here's what he has to say today about it in the NY Times.

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

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

by cmugirl on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:34:20 AM EST

attack machine is through with obama, many american voters won't know the difference between obama and horton. a republican friend of mine mordantly jokes that horton might be a better candidate than obama b/c at least wright is presumably not his minister. with kerry and dukakis the republicans had to make stuff up. wright actually belongs to obama.

by sancho on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:47:54 AM EST

is just one of many. Clinton is a good democrat or she would too be using the negatives about Obama that are clearly available to her. But she doesn't. She knows that the issues are what we really care about. It doesn't matter to Obama's supporters that she hasn't gone nearly as far as we can expect from the right wing if Obama is the candidate. There's so much available, yet she doesn't use it and still gets pummeled by Obama supporters. Who is the true democrat? Who is putting the party first? Who is promoting the Democrat for a day theme? She's not getting the respect she deserves for holding back the negatives that could be used if she was truly the "monster" that they describe.

by glennmcgahee on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:18:45 AM EST

item that a commenter posts?  I must have missed that requirement.

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

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

Reading comprehension is a lost skill, apparently.


by Anne on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:08 AM EST

that or this negative or the other.

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

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

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

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

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

by Robot Porter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM EST

I would believe that Obama does this:

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

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

by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:22:47 AM EST

dealing with things through speeches or shifting the debate.  Being President is a real job, with work and schedules and everything. And it's a full time job. Not four months out of the year like the Ill. legislature, not something you do between campaign stops like Obama's Senate seat seems to be, and not a job you can get without the real credentials that Obama doesn't have.

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

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

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

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

by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:24:07 AM EST

stop laughing long enough to post this.

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

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

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

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

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

by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:45:31 AM EST

The reason we keep loosing is because we refuse to stand on our principles. Because we'll jetison a friend at the first sign of controversy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

by frankly0 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:56:10 AM EST

My reaction to Wright's sermons isn't patriotism/unpatriotism.  

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

by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:14:42 AM EST

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

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

by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:30:17 AM EST

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

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


by Salt on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST

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

by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:35:34 PM EST

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

by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST

demsforlife,

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

I'm sure you see the paradox there.

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

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

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

by lookoverthere on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:09:56 PM EST

Murdochs daughter doing fundraiser for Obama.

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

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

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

To feel good:  watch this video

by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:14:03 PM EST

The last hope.  I'm just not sure it's going to work.  ARG has them tied in Pennsylvania.  Obama is leading in the daily tracking polls day after day.  He's polling better against McCain than Clinton is both nationally, and, just for fun, in California too.  In other words, this has not had the impact the Clinton team was hoping it would.

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

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

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

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

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

by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:22:53 AM EST

Okay, my bad.  I took a look at the complete WSJ article, only to find that this is little more than the recent Quinnipiac poll dressed up in a dashiki and sunglasses.  In other words, that's a lotta invidious assumption based on a single poll -- and at a time when other more recent polls show Obama trending upward in, among other places, Pennsylvania.  Where in theory this should be hurting more than in almost any other state.

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

by Harley on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:16:10 AM EST

that the Wright damage for the primary is present and accounted for.  I was worried in case there was another shoe to drop, but this seems to be it.  Even the most concerned superdelegate WSJ could find "said the Wright controversy didn't hurt his opinion of Mr. Obama."  Plus, Obama still managed to save a few arrows in his quiver for the General Election.

by marcellus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:39:47 AM EST

negatives in an election. But they will raise every negative they have against Hillary Clinton if she wins too, going back to Arkansas. Things the Clinton supporters think are dead would be revived. Things that haven't been explored, like Bill's investments, will become fodder for constant talk radio screeds. I think Obama is better at parrying attacks, and he has less to be attacked about.

Clinton supporters always forget the glass houses factor.

by AdrianLesher on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:54:50 AM EST

I don't think Dems can run in fear of every Republican attack.  Does the delegate interviewed in the WSJ story think that some 527 or c(4) won't be sending out Vince Foster direct mail to loyal Rs?

by rdandrea on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:39:05 AM EST

you can! You are so accurate, it is a constant refrain from the Repubs I work with. They do not think Dems in general stand up for anything. It's not so much they disagree with Dems (believe me, most cannot answer why they are Repubs.
Standing up to bullies is the only way to stop them!

by independent voter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:44:17 AM EST

so.

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

Margaruite Q.:

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

**********

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

by thereyougo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:50:28 AM EST

In hopes of using it in the general election. Guaranteed.

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

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

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

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

by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:55:09 AM EST

A consistent theme here is "Oh, those nasty Republicans will make an issue of Wright."  Of course they will.  And Tuzla, and Rezko, and Bill's $15 million for schmoozing dictators on behalf of businessmen, and Hillary's innumerable half-truths, lies and evasions, and Travelgate, etc., etc., etc.  So freaking what?  Why are Democrats so scared of them?  Every time this party tries to match the GOP on "national security" it loses (cf, John Kerry).  When we put forward a candidate of hope with our own agenda (cf, Clinton in 92), we win.  The whole Wright deal will cost Obama the votes of people who weren't going to vote for him anyway.  

by Traven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM EST

comparison is apt. For me, it's more like Gary Hart.
Obama would have us believe he never heard Wright's hate speech in church---he is DARING reporters to prove him wrong. It's just plain stupid.
If it can be proved that Obama was present when Wright spewed racism, Obama will be finished.

by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:13:59 AM EST

from decades ago, too, I fear -- this is another one that the Clinton campaign has not used but the GOP will, Obama's (slim but it's there) link to the unrepentant ones of the Weather Underground.  

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

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

by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:19:02 AM EST

(OK my parents) only know about Wright's "God damn America" sermon.

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

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

by catfish on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:33:44 AM EST

The Rev Wright has more connections that would not be good for the election than Louis Farakan...  He also has connections to James Cone.. There has been written about this by foreign press and The Dallas Morning News..  I think the Democrats should investigate this before we turn over the keys to the Democratic Party to Obama... Try Google..  Obama has to know about this, he didn't wear blinders and ear plugs to church....

by Sunshine on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:39:52 AM EST

a true long-time Democrat, and a very, very consistent voter, who spends zero time on the internet, won't vote for Obama, no matter what.

Why?

The Wright affair.

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

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

by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM EST

It is my desire to beat down this kind of politics once and for all that makes me lean towards Obama sometimes.  

by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM EST

on this very issue in the April 7 US News& World Report.  He says that wright was "endorsed by Obama with his continued presence" and the repbs will play it as Obama's "two-decade involvement with a radical anti-American"  They will portray Barack using this, the flag pin thing, and his wife's comments as un-American. May not have to use race directly- not that they won't.

by kenosharick on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:11:24 AM EST

Maybe because people on the supposed left keep bringing it up. All i keep hearing is how the scary repubs. are going to dwell on this with 527's and what not. John McCain and Obama have both set a precedent where this seems to be unlikely. Both have already fired or repudiated commenters who have in any way remotley crossed the line(Cunningham for McCain, Schultz for Obama) against each other. So if a nasty 527 comes out about all this pointless stuff then McCain will probably be forced to repudiate it like he has everything else. Im not trying to fluff up McCain but it does take a candidate that will go along with these attacks for them to work. Was Bush ever on record denouncing the swift-boaters in 2004? No. Would him coming out publicly against them have mattered? I think so. Maybe I am wrong about McCain but I dont think that this is the fight he wants to make considering all the questionable religous endorsements he has. Also, some of the commenting seems a little over the line to me and I wonder if these same things were being said about Clinton, would they stay up? "The Mask of Obama", "Obamessiah", these kind of statements are offensive to me. How about the same person claiming that Obama " got a polling bumb from MLKs 40 anniversary" and that he is "associated w/ Farrakhan" in the same posts. Save your untrue and unproven "dog whistle" comments for a Republican at least if thats how you think politics should be.

by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:26:17 AM EST

that pointed out that the GOP had been saving the Rev. Wright issue for the general election but his retirement forced them to play that card early.

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

It ain't over.

by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:29:19 AM EST

"Why America May Go to H*ll".

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

by mike in dc on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM EST

is suspended for chattering. If he returns tomorrow, he is limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:16:35 PM EST

Someone had the guts to say that Obamas recent surge in the polling  is because of the 40th anniversary of Kings assassination. Maybe Clinton is thinking that if she wins the primary, she will get a huge bumb on Nov.22 because thats the 45th anniversary of JFKs assasination and she will then be unbeatable! McCain is about to get a huge bump in the polls because April 14th is the 143rd anniversary of Lincoln being assassinated. I realize that some Obama supporters get over zealous in their support of Obama but this is the funniest thing I have ever heard!

by indy33 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:29:15 PM EST

should sen. obama win the dem. nomination fairly (that would include FL & MI), i will vote for him in nov. not because i think he's the best person for the job, that would be sen. clinton, but because even a pseudo-democrat in the oval office is better than sen. mccain.

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

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

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

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

by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:41:48 PM EST

or talking to Scaife is spineless, then, to quote "The Princess Bride", I don't think that word means what you think it means.

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

by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM EST

Of course, the WSJ will try to use Wright....To have a liberal blog follow suit is very disappointing....

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

by MKS on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:23:04 PM EST

We here on the left all know that Whitewater was a bunch of BS, but you can certainly guess how the Republicans will use that against Hillary come October.  Stained blue dress and all.  Has Hillary "put Whitewater and Lewinsky to bed" yet?  If the metric is killing the story so that Republicans won't run ads about it for the general election, I think not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

by kaleidescope on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST

thanks.

by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:51:49 PM EST

How in a few thread you say dont trust the media... yet still trust them on this faux controversy over Rev. Wright...

by Raheem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:32:25 PM EST