I just heard a news clip regarding the fact that J. Wright will be interviewed by Bill Moyers in a special for television.

Is the JW fallout continuing?

Has/is it affecting Obama's "numbers" negatively, perhaps more than any other issue?

I don't think we can make that assessment yet.

I will, however, predict that the Zacks, quicks, and a few other members, will fan this for all they can get.

Quite franky, I'm bored.

I went to the google news section and discovered 139+ articles less than six hours old on the issue, so I would have to say that the fallout is continuing. Who could seriously maintain otherwise?




About a month ago, a Rasmussen poll found that the Wright incident dented his popularity by five percentage points. The trend also continued in April. More than any other issue, it is the most damaging one to him. Even the "bitter" comment wasn't that big of a matter. I remember when the Wright escapade broke out. I remember hearing Wright's voice on SIRIUS patriot countlessly through out the day. To say that it hasn't been a pivotal moment for the Obama campaign would be to deny the obvious. Don't get me wrong, I like Obama and I'm a liberal democrat, but it has definitely hurt his campaign and his resopnse to it has not been solid or what it should've been.

I totally agree with you! In fact it mystifies me why, when what his response should have been, seems so obvious, he didn't do the clear thing and neutralize Rev. Wright immediately. If he didn't know how to quite handle the Rev. Wright debacle, certainly he has "handlers" who could have put the perfect words together, and this entire matter would already be put to rest. I like Obama, even though I'm not nearly as liberal as he appears to be. I just hate to see this be the issue which brings him down!

Is the JW fallout continuing?

It sure seems to be, surprisingly so in this age of the 24/7 news cycle. This thing just keeps coming up. I think it's because Obama is still a relative unknown on the national political stage and people are trying to figure out just who he is. Up until now he's run a pretty superficial campaign with a lot of "I want to change Washington" rhetoric which every politician says, but without much to back up his words. So, people are saying, "Ok, cool, we have a really good politician who says he wants to change Washington, but what changes is he going to make and how's he gonna do that?" So, absent a definitive agenda from Obama people are forced to look deeper into just who he is, what kind of a person, what does he truly believe? What changes is he likely to make? He would like to have world peace and end hunger and that's a great answer for a Miss America contestant (speaking metaphorically here), but to invoke a quote from 20 years ago, "Where's the beef?" What exactly is Obama going to do if he becomes President? I don't think he's answered that and until he does, people are going to look elsewhere for a clue on who he is. The Rev Wright thing is a big clue to many people, particularly those of us who "cling to our religion" out of some sense of desperation. People like us, and there are a lot of us, have in the course of our lives come across a pastor or minister or priest or rabbi or imam who have inspired us, given us spiritual growth and shaped our lives. Those people have become our spiritual advisors and they continue to be that for our entire lives. They influence us because they are a part of us. I don't want to get too religious here and violate the rules of the forum, but sufficie it to say there are a whole lot of people in America who are religious, not fanatics, but believe in God and have found a spiritual advisor in their religious leader. I have in the form of a Methodist minister named Reverend Kleen who passed away several years ago. Yet, not a day goes by that I don't remember his words and his teachings. There were things that he said that I didn't agree with, but if someone wanted to define me using him, I wouldn't have a problem with it. He was a far better man than I.

That is the thought process of much of America, perhaps not so much of , but it is something that Obama better understand. He handled this issue poorly. You just don't throw your pastor of 20 years under the bus as a crazy uncle and hope he goes away. What Obama should have done and it may be too late now, would have been to talk about the goodness of Rev. Wright. The things that Obama learned from him and why he's stayed loyal to him over the years. If he had done this at the outset, this would be a non-issue, most of American would have accepted it and moved on. Perhaps this demonstrates Obama's lack of experience on the national stage. Either that, or worse, it underscores Obama's lack of understanding of the American people.


Has/is it affecting Obama's "numbers" negatively, perhaps more than any other issue?

It sure seems to be.


Aquilla

Is the JW fallout continuing?


I think the JW dust-up has come to be more symbolic than anything. It marks the point where this race spoiled into a gooey, sticky stalemate that is far less exciting and euphoric to cover (as a journalist) or watch (as a voter.) It marks the beginning of America's dissatisfaction with Obama, or more precisely, it's humanization of him:



It's not that voters are turned-off by Obama or that they don't "know who he is," as every republican in the pundit sphere keeps insisting-- as I've all but conclusively argued in other posts, voters know a heck of a lot more about Obama than this John McCain fellow. They know more about him than they ever knew about George W. Bush or Al Gore or John Kerry.

i.e., how many of you can tell me John McCain or Hillary Clinton's middle name without googling it? How many of you even know where Hillary was born? Until the Pennsylvanian primary, how many of you knew where her father was from? How many of you can name one job that Hillary Clinton held before entering the political world? But I bet every one of you has heard something about Obama's past as a community organizer. I bet nearly everyone on this forum can correctly identify Indonesia and Hawaii as Obama stomping grounds, but I bet half of you didn't know that John McCain grew up mainly in Virginia. I had to wikipedia it just now myself.

Anybody who has ever read Max Weber or an issue of Sports Illustrated knows what's going on here. Charisma wears off, like "tread off a tire," as Garrison Keillor penned weeks earlier. I don't think the Wright incident was the cause of that de-charismatification, so much as it nicely lined up with that moment when Barack could possibly not have sailed any higher.

His political biography had been written in advance by Americans of all stripes eager to see an end to the Baby Boomer partisanship and the Clinton era. Take this piece of glowing praise written shortly before Iowa:



But, in Texas and Ohio, that didn't happen. Barack let our hopes down by not delivering that game-clinching home run at the spectacular pre-planned moment, and well, spoiling a good climax like that is maybe one of the least forgivable sins in politics. He betrayed our trusts not as voters, but as spectators who had tuned in to see a good fight. From there on out, the seeds of doubt were planted that this guy was not the golden child we and he had said he was, and from there, all it took was a couple or three youtube videos to voice that disillusion. Obamania had already been supplanted by Obamadisappointment. The Jeremiah Wright videos were as much an expression of that comedown as they were a genuine moment in their own right.

To win -- and recapture some of his charisma, his momentum, his magic -- Barack has to become the underdog again. Conversely, he has to re-make Clinton into that juggernaut agent of the Status Quo. We'll see. The Clintons relish their underdog role. They royally mess up everything when they are anything but the underdog, but put their backs against the wall and they generally deliver. So I'm guessing it's not a wall they will be easily pried from, but Barack -- and a whole decade of anti-Hillary commentators -- have spent years casting her as the oppressive face of a tyrannical washington.

Has/is it affecting Obama's "numbers" negatively, perhaps more than any other issue?

Actually, what I think hit Obama the hardest were those comments by Ferraro, that basically boiled down to "he hasn't earned this." That's a powerful sentiment, and I'd expect John McCain to use it in the Fall.



I agree completely. To me, this was a no-brained opportunity for Barack to talk about his religion and how christianity has saved him from ___________. He can fill those words in for himself. And Americans would have tuned in with all ears, and he would have had a chance to affirm his basic values, pre-Bittergate, etc. Would have been good for his teflon coating.

In a perfect world, we would realize that Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not running for the presidency and will not be on the ballot. One of the members of his flock will be if he wins the nomination. Is the JW fallout continuing? Gee, that depends. How important is Jeremiah Wright to your life? He's not that important to mine.

What response would you have liked to see from Barack Obama, nebraska29? Should he have called for Wright's public execution? Under just how fast of a bus do you want him to throw Wright under? Obama has spoken about Wright countless times both on the stump and with the media. He gave a major speech just a few months ago denouncing Wright's most controversial remarks. I am sincerely at a loss as to know what more Obama could say or do to disavow Wright.

What would have the "obvious" response Ottimista? How precisely does Obama "neutralize" Reverend Wright?

I am also certain Obama has media consultants (not "handlers") who might have asked him, "Is there any problem regarding your church or pastor that might come up?" Did Obama reply, "Nope. No problems at all," or did he misread how Wright's "goddamn America" remark would be parsed, spun and interpreted to make the good reverend the second coming of Louis Farrakhan?

I don't know if Obama's race speech of March 18 qualifies as "the perfect words," but they do address the matter of Rev. Wright in a direct and honest manner:

... Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

link

The first sentence of the last paragraph was the straw that broke the back for critics of Reverend Wright. They would have been satisfied with nothing less than
Obama spitting on a picture of Wright and and saying, "I know him not." Of course, had he done so, Obama would now be dead in the mind of millions of Black Americans and the lesson learned would be if a Black man makes White Americans nervous or angry, you had better put a lot of distance between yourself and that Black man.

Obama already publicly distanced and stressed his disagreement with Reverend Wright's words. Was he supposed to tie the noose to hang him as well?

I've heard and read a lot of second-guessing about what Obama didn't do, but very little in the way of suggestions of how he could have done it better.




Strange. What I think this whole affair demonstrates is how little the majority of Whites understand the Black church.

It underscores how little Whites know of the anger and frustration of an older generation of Blacks who understand Reverend Wright's remarks and agree with some of them.

It proves how true it is that 11:00 a.m. on Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America.

Obama did speak of why he still holds Reverend Wright in high esteem. Some of you just weren't paying attention. You already had formed your opinions that Wright was an anti-American, Black radical and nothing was going to be allowed that might shake that perception. Certainly not Obama's speech.

After all, don't "they" all stick together?

The problem is even those who do have considerable experience on the national stage find it possible to denounce Wright's remarks, but not the man himself.

"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," (Colin) Powell said, "and so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."

Powell added that he does not know Wright and praised Obama's response.

"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told (Diane) Sawyer.

Powell, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate in almost every election since he retired from military service and public life, expressed admiration for Obama.

"It was a good (speech)," Powell said. "I admired him for giving it. And I agreed with much of what he said." link

Whaddya think Aquilla? Does a former Secretary of State and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff share Obama's "lack of experience on the national stage" and "lack of understanding of the American people?" Powell "gets" what's worth praising and criticizing about Wright. So does Obama.

Or maybe Powell's just sticking up for a brother in trouble too?

After all, "they" always stick together...

Yes, the Rev. Wright is all over 24-7 news and CSPAN has dedicated the first session on the topic this morning. An interesting note is that Rev. Wright's loud presentations on file CD's speak louder than his quiet toned response that demands someone play the CD's and the advertisements against Obama supporters to put everything into context. The ads seem to be having the most impact for the less cost since they are played for days on end on the news programs and most people just don't have the time to listen to, or examine the issue and as a result they retain the message from the loud spoken words of Rev. Wright presented on the Videos, the clips are "made for soundbite" advertising, short and forceful.

Republicans are using the soundbites against Blue Dog freshmen Democrats in conservative regions to regain House seats. The Blue Dogs have the most to lose as the Democratic Party continues to shift far left, take a look at their membership http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/Member%20Page.html and visit the freshman's sites and see how concerned they are about their seats, or better yet go the the Republican member's site that are opposing them this fall.

Much of the impact will be determined by the drip, drip, drip schedule of Rev. Wright and other news that may fill up the 24-7 news broadcasting but noteworthy is the announcement that Senator Obama will appear on Fox News Sunday with Cris Wallace this Sunday to keep the subject alive or to bury it once and for all. Mr. Wallace will ask questions to all of the unanswered questions and I'd guess his viewership will be larger than history and those who miss it will see clips on the other news outlets so it will be up to Senator Obama if he keeps Rev. Wright issue alive or buries it. Knowing Cris Wallace's style I think he will shift the conversation to an even larger issue of Obama's character and honesty if he hedges any whatsoever to his poor memory and sleazy connections he has in his closet, for example Obama's spokesperson has stated that Obama nor his wife has recolection of meeting with a Iraqi billionaire businessman connected to Saddam http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/o...ce_n_96589.html I can see the smirk on Cris's face already as he asks if this affiliation had anything to do with why he didn't support the Iraq War implying that money was coming to Chicago equally as "oil for food". I think those who watch Fox News Sunday this weekend will come away shaking their heads saying, damn, just another politician willing to deal with the devil to get ahead I think I'll take a shower.

If other earth shattering news occurs to black out the coverage of Rev. Wright and "new" revelations and he gives a good performance on Sunday then Obama will be good to go within the Democratic Party. The soundbites will remain regardless, the "slip" will remain and the Democratic Party will worry about their Blue Dogs falling from the kindness of conservative Democratic voters support.

Edited to add link for impact http://youtube.com/watch?v=hP-YoB5mnZs

Is this perhaps because the first round was due to internal Democratic divisions where as the current furor is being generated by Republicans who have decided Obama is going to win the nomination?

What opinions I have formed are irrelevant, I'm not running for President, and neither is Colin Powell. You raise the possibility that "white America" doesn't understand "black America" and black churches. Perhaps that is so. But then again, I would raise to you the possibility that Barack Obama doesn't understand white churches. And, he's the one running for President. The "change guy" and it seems to me that if he is indeed going to change things, even we white folks have a right to know what changes he's going to make. Maybe we're out of touch with the black community, I don't know. But, don't we have the right to question whether or not Obama is out of touch with the white community?


Aquilla

He could have outlined that Wright's view of the black community contrasts quite differently to that of his own. Yet, that the reverends world viewpoint, while being quite different than his own introduced him to the condition and perspective view of the race problem that exists in America.

I think Obama grew up with one perception of race relations between whites and blacks and then he either changed his viewpoint to that of Rev. Wright or he retained his earlier viewpoint or, he developed a merger of the two viewpoints with ability to view the world from both viewpoints. He could have said, while I fully didn't totally agree with all sermons and the reverends viewpoint I remained to learn where the true reality of my race viewpoint actually exists. I stayed in the church because I honestly believe Rev. Wright loves those he serves and does much good for the community that I also loved and shared the end goal of a better life for those living there. He could go on to say he routinely spoke with his wife about the differences in his and Rev. Wright's viewpoints and that they discussed differing positions with their children.

I guess, in reality he was quite aware of Rev. Wright's words that he later denounced but had retained him in his staff and that is really hard to explain to white people unless you explain yourself.

I have a more cynical viewpoint of Obama, I think he's brilliant but is simply living out a success plan for his life. If you look at his life clinically you see him from early college days to goal checking off boxes that have been proven for other successful politicians. Emotion doesn't set in when he says he went to the poor neighborhoods and tried to lift up struggling steel workers. I've read elsewhere that the locals saw him as an outsider that shared nothing but skin color with them, he was writing a resume and simply filling in the qualifications for the "goal". I'll give you odds that every Democratic politician in that area share the same church, friends from the guy being investigated to the former terrorists. These are necessary resume rungs on the ladder to the goal and some are harder to justify than others, but his explanation of his relationship with Rev. Wright will be fully explained this Sunday or it will be a topic until election day should he be the nominee.

"I think Obama grew up with one perception of race relations between whites and blacks and then he either changed his viewpoint to that of Rev. Wright or he retained his earlier viewpoint or, he developed a merger of the two viewpoints with ability to view the world from both viewpoints. He could have said, while I fully didn't totally agree with all sermons and the reverends viewpoint I remained to learn where the true reality of my race viewpoint actually exists. I stayed in the church because I honestly believe Rev. Wright loves those he serves and does much good for the community that I also loved and shared the end goal of a better life for those living there. He could go on to say he routinely spoke with his wife about the differences in his and Rev. Wright's viewpoints and that they discussed differing positions with their children."

When I used the inadequate words of "obvious response" in my original post, the above is what I should have said. I agree with this approach totally and even though I referred to Obama's "handlers", advisors could suffice as well. It just seems to me that since Obama is involved in the race of his life so far, he would cover this base in a more complete manner as stated by the poster above.

The fallout continues simply because it really is an important issue. I do not want a man with Obama's beliefs in the White House. If he doesn't think along the same lines as Wright, he'd have left that congregation a long time ago. And he certainly wouldn't have allowed his children to be influenced by him.

Obama is a fraud. He will not 'bring us together'. If we're crazy enough to elect him, he will prove to be the most divisive President in the nation's history, bar none.

These are bold and hostile words. What do you have in the way of factual information to back up what is clearly your opinion? Think research, hyperlinks, etc.

I haven't seen reason to call him a fraud because he presents himself positively in public without fail. He clearly still has the support of the black community holding his viewpoint of the world even though he rejected the short soundbites from the reverend. I would guess the key questions would be why did you stay in the church and allow your children to attend if an ideology different than that you present in your campaign is present there? Why did you contribute thousands of dollars to the church if you disagree with its teachings? When I was a kid my parents often disagreed with the "preacher" and criticized him on the way home from church because he used a style of do as I say and not as I do. Yet, my parents contributed within their means giving tides (SP?) and greater amounts during reunions. He could have simply said on many occasions Rev. Wright presented a viewpoint that differed greatly from that I grew up with, some of his positions were correct that changed my original position and now my new position is that which I present in public to the American people it neither reflects all of my original nor Rev. Wright's position but that which I have learned in my experiences in life.

Which "White community," Aquilla? There is no more one singular representative community of Whites than there is for Blacks.

Some White communities seem to be in touch with Barack Obama. There are enclaves of the White community that will never allow any Black man to be in touch with them no matter if their name is Barack Obama or Colin Powell.

Seems to me in the past you've expressed plenty of formed opinions about what changes Obama is going to make and you don't want any part of 'em. That is why you begging off about your formed opinions now seems just a bit hollow.

Anyway, if anyone wants to read the transcript from the Bill Moyers interview with Reverend Wright it's online as is the video of the program.

BILL MOYERS: One of the most controversial sermons that you preach is the sermon you preach that ended up being that sound bite about Goddamn America.

REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT: Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change. And I'm through now. But let me leave you with one more thing. Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate - the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from East to West. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonized Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British government failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America! That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizen as less than human. God damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!

BILL MOYERS: What did you mean when you said that?

REVEREND WRIGHT: When you start confusing God and government, your allegiances to government -a particular government and not to God, then you're in serious trouble because governments fail people. And governments change. And governments lie. And those three points of the sermon. And that is the context in which I was illustrating how the governments biblically and the governments since biblical times, up to our time, changed, how they failed, and how they lie. And when we start talking about my government right or wrong, I don't think that goes. That is consistent with what the will of God says or the word of God says that governments don't say right or wrong. That governments that wanna kill innocents are not consistent with the will of God. And that you are made in the image of God, you're not made in the image of any particular government. We have the freedom here in this country to talk about that publicly, whereas some other places, you're dead if say the wrong thing about your government. link

Is the JW fallout continuing?

Has/is it affecting Obama's "numbers" negatively, perhaps more than any other issue?

Yes and yes, I think. There are a few of Rev. Wright's comments that are really troubling. I'm not talking about "God Damn America", which is a matter of opinion. I'm talking about Reverend Wright's fantasies (presented from the pulpit as fact) that had the U.S. government creating the HIV/AIDS virus to kill black people, introducing crack cocaine as an agent of racial genocide, and deliberately infecting Blacks with syphilis in the Tuskegee Experiment. (It's bad enough that the government deliberately withheld treatment from the Tuskegee syphilis victims, we don't need to embellish the story.)

Maybe this kind of talk is common in the black church. I hope not. I think Obama missed an opportunity to directly address some of these false beliefs. Instead, he kept it vague, basically saying he objected to the statements that were objectionable. It was nearly as weak as McCain's condemning "remarks that are in any way viewed as anti-anything." (I think McCain stole the idea after seeing Barack get away with essentially the same answer.)

Is the JW fallout continuing?

Certainly it is continuing. It is in the self-interest of at least a couple of people?

Has/is it affecting Obama's "numbers" negatively, perhaps more than any other issue?

Probably, but there's something about this that isn't logical. Wright makes a speech defending himself and somehow it's supposed to reflect negatively on Obama.

More perplexing and contradicting is the fact some of the same people denouncing Wright are the ones who give (my symbol for Rush) a free pass.

Surely you're not talking about me. In your shut-Limbaugh's-piehole thread, I wrote, "it's an ugly sentiment on Rush's part. It's wrong to wish for riots, just to benefit your side politically." And I haven't given Limbaugh any pass that I wouldn't give Reverend Wright. I don't think either of them should be silenced, fined, or otherwise punished for their speech.

I still think Obama missed an opportunity by not addressing the specifics of Rev. Wright's paranoid conspiracy theories. Wright is an influential figure, and someone Obama intentionally associated himself with for twenty years. Obama is clearly too smart and too reasonable to believe Wright's theories about the government committing genocide with HIV/AIDS and crack cocaine. It would have been nice to hear him say that, especially if such talk is common in the "black church."

Bold and hostile seems a bit melodramatic, but whatever floats your boat.

The fact is, BO denied even hearing Wright's sermons at first. When that was shown to be a fraudulent claim he took a different tack. But the fact is, all the divisive preachings of this poor-excuse-for-a-preacher were there for all to see...on CDs, DVDs, websites and live and in person from the pulpit. And BO never distanced himself from any of them. In fact, he made sure his own children were subjected to them regularly.

If you believe the rantings of Wright are the stuff that brings people together then there is nothing any sane person can say to you.

You still have not provided any corroborating evidence to back any of this up.

Is the JW fallout continuing?

Apparently, yes. This is a bit sad as I think the "association" with Rev. Wright should be the least of anyone's concerns about Barack Obama.

The recent television ad in North Carolina (which entspeak mentioned in the Obama's recent "slip" thread, for some reason) is the clearest instance of "JW fallout" of late. The interesting thing about that campaign, though, is that it is an ad condemning two Democratic gubernatorial candidates, Bev Perdue and Richard Moore, for endorsing Sen. Obama: "They should know better."

The GOP strategy, at least in North Carolina, is already that Barack Obama is "too extreme" (as the ad underlines) - so radioactive that anyone who has even endorsed his candidacy is suspect. In short, the GOP is using Obama himself as a weapon against other Democrats. To me, of course, Sen. Obama is about as "extreme" as Gerald Ford - but I'm not the party that thinks these ads could work. But were the "toxic Obama" spin to stick, especially in swing states, that could make a difference.

Should the Democratic Party's greater concern be Obama fallout? Could the candidate who's "too extreme for North Carolina" be costing the party seats "by association"? I've long suggested that an Obama presidency would throw Congress to the GOP in 2012. It wasn't until I saw the NCGOP ad, though, that it occurred to me that it could happen this year.

Has/is it affecting Obama's "numbers" negatively, perhaps more than any other issue?

Surprisingly, perhaps, I don't think it has really - not in the Democratic primaries. I've spoken to a number of employees and family members here (and a few locals who were at the polling station on the day of the primary) who don't follow politics that closely and few seemed to know much about any of the controversies (about any of the candidates) that have so consumed cable news, the blogosphere, and America's Debate - though the "bitterness" meme has trickled down a bit, mostly because it seemed to be about voters here. If they are otherwise aware of primary controversies, they're mostly old news - you know, Edwards got a pricey haircut, Giuliani had a lot of wives, Obama is a Muslim, and that sort of stuff. Of those who had even heard of Rev. Wright, though, both were fairly philosophical: "Well, it was his preacher saying stuff, not him." (I also got an "Isn't he the guy that hates Catholics or something?" ) Overall, Democrats in central PA seem to be supporting Clinton because they know her and are wary of Obama because they don't - or vice versa.

It would seem that the "message" about Wright hasn't really been getting out - yet. So, to the extent that Wright could have a negative impact on Obama's numbers, I don't think we've begun to see it. And, unless local Republican Party officials - like dear little Linda Daves in North Carolina - and GOP-biased 527s make an even bigger issue of it through more smear campaigns, we may not. <--- ridiculous optimism



I think the negative reflection isn't due to Wright himself this time, but what he said about Sen. Obama. The section of the interview that I've seen getting most of the play in the blogosphere is this:

For a man who has been passing himself off as a "different" type of candidate, espousing "different" politics, Wright's characterization of Obama as a pretty typical "politician" who is "saying what he has to say as a politician" and "doing what he has to do as a politician" could be somewhat damaging.

For those of us who have known all along that Obama is a politician, wholly a politician, and nothing but a politician, so help us God, Wright's impressions will have little impact. And, for those who think Obama is the Second Coming and are naive enough to believe his rhetoric, no one is going to make the scales fall from their eyes, no matter how intimately they may know the candidate.

But for those who may be in the middle and who think Obama might be somehow "different", hearing from a long-time friend and mentor that, no, he's just another politician saying and doing what is politically expedient just like every other politician, this might make some small difference.

I don't quite buy the spin that Wright was saying, in effect, that Obama agrees with all those controversial statements, but because he's a politician he has to distance himself from them, but it's clear that Wright feels pastors and politicians need to have different conversations with their congregations than with their constituents.

Rev. Wright seeming to suggest that Obama is a nothing more than a typical "politician" may not reflect that negatively on Sen. Obama, BoF, but there's nothing illogical about the suggestion.

I prefer to call it a convenience and diversion from real issues for Clinton and McCain, but probably more so for the 527 groups.

If Hillary Clinton were leading in delegates and popular votes, there would be something about her - I'm not sure what, but something.

I predict an election campaign no less nasty than 2004. Karl Rove is alive and the ghost of Lee Atwater lingers on.

My doctor is a liberal throwback to the 60s. I saw him Wednesday and he said he didn't expect things to get any better in his lifetime. I'm beginning to share his pessimism.

I don't agree that Reverend Wright presented his opinions from the pulpit as fact, Jobius. But even if he did, does it follow that his parishioners, including Barack and Michelle Obama, are not intelligent enough to decide for themselves how much of Wright's rap they are going to accept or reject?

To your central issue about Wright's "fantasies"of the U.S. government creating the HIV/AIDS virus to kill Blacks, introducing crack cocaine to fuel addiction and racial genocide and deliberately infecting Blacks with syphilis during The Tuskegee Experiment, which part of this is a fantasy?

What percentage of White Americans think President Kennedy was assassinated by persons other than Lee Harvey Oswald?

How many White Americans believe in UFO's, alien abduction and Area 51?

How many White Americans believe the federal government knew of, planned, conducted or covered up the events of September 11, 2001?

How many White Americans believe Elvis is still alive, George Bush did not steal the 2000 presidential election, weapons of mass destruction were smuggled out of Iraq and nobody noticed and Paris Hilton is a celebrity?

One does not have to take leave of their senses to suspect that a government that would exploit Black men as lab rats for 40 years might not beyond considering doing likewise with HIV/AIDS and crack. The Tuskegee syphilis study is only the most notorious example of Blacks being used in human experimentation in the United States. There are many other examples.

Blacks have been forced to undergo painful, risky experimental surgery, dosed with radiation, sterilized against their will and singled out for experiments aimed at finding brain abnormalities linked to violence. They have been falsely assumed to feel pain less than whites and to require higher X-ray doses to produce a readable film.

One of the most controversial figures in the book is James Marion Sims, a 19th-century surgeon who has been venerated as a selfless benefactor of women for devising ways to repair severe vaginal injuries that can occur in childbirth. There are statues in his honor in Central Park, South Carolina, Alabama and even France.

But Sims honed his skills by performing scores of painful operations on the genitals of black slaves who could not refuse his demands. His early attempts so often failed that he operated on one young woman 30 times. The women had to be held down during the excruciating operations. Though ether was available, Sims refused to use it, insisting it was not needed. But when he had refined the surgery enough to offer it to white women, he always gave them ether.

Reprehensible behavior continued into the 20th century. Often, the so- called research performed on blacks had the trappings of science but was actually meaningless, poorly designed and based on specious theories.

"In the South," Washington writes, "rendering black women infertile without their knowledge during other surgery was so common that the procedure was called a 'Mississippi appendectomy.' " But the same was true in the North, as recently as the 1970's, when unnecessary hysterectomies were often done on poor black and Puerto Rican women to give doctors in training a chance to practice their skills. link

Reverend Wright may have exaggerated the degree, extent and intent of a deliberate governmental effort to destroy Black Americans, but that doesn't mean his paranoia doesn't have some basis in fact.

What is "troubling" about Wright's remarks, Jobius? The likelihood that he's wrong or the possibility that he's not?




Oh, I see. The North Carolina GOP creates a guilt-by-association attack ad using Wright and Barack Obama is the problem, not the attack ad?

Lord, gimme strength.

John McCain wrote a letter to his peeps in N.C.

Dear Chairman Daves,

From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement.

This ad does not live up to the very high standards we should hold ourselves to in this campaign. We need to run a campaign that is worthy of the people we seek to serve. There is no doubt that we will draw sharp contrasts with the Democrats on fundamental issues critical to the future course of our country. But we need not engage in political tactics that only seek to divide the American people.

Once again, it is imperative that you withdraw this offensive advertisement.

John McCain link

This is what is known as "plausible denialability"

The GOP gets to use Wright to smear Obama and other Democrats. McCain gets to keep his hands clean while he says he wants to run a "respectful campaign"
and the ad keeps running and gets repeated over and over as it is shown on national television talking head shows who applaud McCain's nobility. Meanwhile, the ad gets maximum exposure and instead of criticizing the Republicans for taking the low road (again) it's all Obama's fault for not "handling" Wright.

This is what is known as "blaming the victim."



I don't think that was what Wright was saying at all. Of course, you're free to interpret his words as you will.

Something else Wright said that apparently isn't getting as much play in the blogosphere s this:

When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public. That’s not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a "wackadoodle."

It's to paint me as something: "Something's wrong with me. There’s nothing wrong with this country...or its policies. We're perfect. Our hands are free. Our hands have no blood on them." That’s not a failure to communicate. The message that is being communicated by the sound bites is exactly what those pushing those sound bites want to communicate. link

I wonder if the good reverend has any idea of how prescient he would be?

I'm not saying Obama is the problem. I'm saying that if the GOP's (unfair) exploitation of Obama's alleged "extremism" is effective ("if the spin sticks") in damaging other Democratic candidates, then that is a problem. It's something that the Democratic Party should be doing its best to nip in the bud - or at least effectively rebut. If "guilt by association" should be of concern in relation to Wright and Obama (and I would argue that, however ludicrous the tactic, it should definitely be taken as serious threat to the success of the campaign), should "guilt by association" not be of concern regarding Obama and the Democratic Party?

I am unequivocally "blaming" the GOP (the NCGOP in particular in this instance) here, if you wanna make this a blame game. The question, though, is not who's at fault (that's obvious), but how the Dems can address this sort of under-handed campaign. If history is anything to go by, not too damned well. To be perfectly clear, it was not until I saw the Perdue/Moore ad that I realized the GOP would sink so low so soon - low enough and early enough to possibly affect campaigns other than the presidential race, especially as they are already targeting other candidates using Obama. That is hardly the senator's fault - and it's absurd to suggest that that was my point.

Regarding McCain, I agree entirely. As I mentioned elsewhere:
That's my point: use Wright to attack Obama and Obama to attack - who knows? - Bev Perdue and Richard Moore for a start. And all with plausible deniability on the part of the saintly old "war hero".


Nor do I necessarily, but it was an extremely unfortunate rationalization because that is certainly the way it is being spun ("The section of the interview that I've seen getting most of the play in the blogosphere").


You're quite right: it isn't getting the play it should. Someone told you politics was going to be fair?

As I've already mentioned a few times, there are many of Rev. Wright's more "controversial" statements with which I agree - or which I think are at least arguable. The above statement (though I'd hardly class it as "controversial") is one with which I agree 100%. He's absolutely right. And it's one of the reasons I've felt all along that Obama didn't stand much of a chance once the Republican Noise Machine got ahold of him - and they're scarcely warming up. I've been saying this until I'm blue in the typing fingers.


I wonder if you have any idea of how prescient I might be...

Some excerpts from the sermon in question are in this blog post. It's a long list of things the government has lied about. A few are matters of opinion ("a closeted Klan court, that is a throwback to the 19th century, handpicked by Daddy Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, between Clarence and that stacked court, they are about to un-do Roe vs. Wade, just like they are about to un-do affirmative action"), but mostly it's a list of alleged facts. Inlcuding:

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
"The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie."

I'm sure Barack Obama is intelligent enough to decide which to accept and which to reject. But if you watch the video, it's clear the congregation is overwhelmingly accepting it all. That's the thing about a powerful speaker addressing an enthusiastic crowd.


All of it, as far as I know. Is "fantasy" the wrong word? It's all false.


Far too many. I would have the same concerns with a presidential candidate who said his spiritual advisor was David Ray Griffin, a man who thinks the U.S. government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. I would expect the candidate to be questioned about that, and would expect him to disassociate himself with that theory. Because it isn't true, and it's corrosive to society to have large numbers of people believing it.

I'm not for suppressing anybody's speech, but people have to show up and battle bad ideas and bad speech with good ideas and good speech.

Barack Obama is clearly capable of doing that. That's why I say he missed an opportunity here.

A bit of topic -- I just watched the Bill Moyers interview with Jeremiah Wright. Softball interview, but Wright came across as smart, reasonable, even soft-spoken in that context. Moyers actually mentioned the AIDS story in his introduction, but somehow failed to ask the man himself. Another missed opportunity -- I would have liked to hear him defend his position.


The virtual certainty that he's wrong, and that he's successfully spreading the falsehood.

Thanks for the details on other examples of racist "medicine." I'd heard of some of them, but not all. If Rev. Wright had just listed those true stories, they'd be damning enough. But with AIDS and crack, he pushes the old historical racism forward a few decades, into stories where it's anachronistic. We should remember the evils that were done, and condemn them, but not insist on seeing them where they've now been eradicated.

True, and I've covered events where Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan received wildly enthusiastic applause from an audience that was predominantly made up of non-Muslims. But enthusiastic applause didn't necessarily mean everyone was 100% agreeing with what Farrakhan was saying and it definitely didn't mean a lot of folks went down to the nearest mosque the next day and became Muslims.

Enthusiasm for a speaker does not necessarily mean endorsement of a speaker's viewpoint.





Really? And are you familiar with the reporting of the late Gary Webb?

Webb was best known for his 1996 "Dark Alliance" series of articles written for the San Jose Mercury News and later published as a book. In the three-part series, Webb investigated Nicaraguans linked to the CIA-backed Contras who had allegedly smuggled cocaine into the U.S. which was then distributed as crack cocaine into Los Angeles and funneled profits to the Contras. Webb also alleged that this influx of Nicaraguan supplied cocaine sparked and significantly fueled the widespread crack epidemic that swept through urban areas. According to Webb, the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of drugs into the U.S. by the Contra personnel and directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras.

Webb's reporting generated a large controversy and the Mercury News backed away from the story, effectively ending Webb's career as a mainstream media journalist. In 2004, Webb was found dead from two self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head, a victim of an apparent suicide. link

Webb's story brought him fame and acclaim---and the wrath of others in the mainstream media who came down upon him like a ton of bricks. In reaction to the scathing criticism and backlash Webb said,

"If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me ... I was winning awards, getting raises, lecturing college classes, appearing on TV shows, and judging journalism contests. So how could I possibly agree with people like Noam Chomsky and Ben Bagdikian, who were claiming the system didn't work, that it was steered by powerful special interests and corporations, and existed to protect the power elite? And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss had been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job ... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress."






I'm not going to say I agree with all of the Reverend Wright's theories because a lot of them are out there where the buses don't run. But I disagree with you because an evil has been discovered and condemned it does not necessarily follow that the possibility of the evil flourishing anew is impossible. There have always been people who believe the greater good can be served by a small act of evil.

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth," Sherlock Holmes would say, and a healthy dose of skepticism is necessary living in the modern world. What Wright has said is highly improbable, but beyond the realm of possibility? Not the case. The lack of evidence of the existence of UFO's, governmental experiments upon African-Americans or Paris Hilton's talent doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. It is quite possible it merely has not been found yet.

With the notable exception of Paris Hilton and her lack of talent. That is a slam dunk.

First off, when I watched those clips, I thought the congregation looked placid. Absolutely placid and bored, like they'd heard it all before. And I bet they had.

More importantly, here's my point on this:

We are six months and a week or two away from the general election. Six months ago, Hillary Clinton sat confidently on top of a 20-point lead in the national polls, and commentators were just waking up to the possibility that Barack or John Edwards might win Iowa. Go back on AD and read some posts from six months ago. Might as well be written in olde english.

Now, Spring is an important time to brand a candidate, and that's what both parties are trying to do to each other. But it's a tenuous layer of mud at best. As high profile as this race is, most Americans won't tune in until the conventions in August. That's when they'll make their biggest assessment of the candidates. And we know which candidate makes a very good convention speech. No competition there.

Don't believe me? Think that these issues of judgement and character linger on interminably, that they will haunt and ultimately sink the Obama campaign? Ha. Around this time in 1992, we were wondering if Bill Clinton had a 'character problem,' which he most certainly did. We'd just been rocked with the cable-news scandal du jour that he had dodged the draft, "smoked but not inhaled", and worse, that he had cheated prolifically on his wife -- who at the time, was seen as an offensively elite ivy league brainchild with no connection to Cookie Bakin' Know Nuffin' Blue Collar Women (a demographic she now wins handily).

So forgive me if I think that Rev. Wright will be about as important to the November election as Gennifer Flowers was in 1992: Not important enough to matter. Because we American people and our media, we love stories of redemption. Both of our last two-term presidents had serious character flaws -- one was an incorrigible prodigal son with little talent for nuance, the other a slobbish womanizer with an adjustable sense of ethics -- but we were all too eager to forgive them. So we'll see if the American people grant the same courtesy to their "race-transcending, partisan-healing, hope-inspiring" candidate.

I'm not saying they will or won't. But I wouldn't underestimate us in this capacity. After all, we're talking about a country that elected Richard Nixon twice because he mentioned a dog in a speech, then gave Hillary Clinton the state of New Hampshire because she cried in a delicatessen or whatever. We have open arms and short memories, and frankly, on a cosmic level, none of this really matters anyway. I think we may be wasting a lot of ASCII on this one.

I just wanted to point out that the Tuskegee Experiment is something that really happened. Although it's questionable that the government infected black men with syphilis, the experiment itself was incredibly unethical, and black men were denied treatment for the disease, and they were often not even told that the disease was life threatening.

Good reminder, but I never said otherwise:



Broadly, yes. I don't think Webb ever claimed that the Contra-connected drug smuggling was racist in nature, let alone genocidal. It was simply a convenient way to fund an anti-communist militia. If American officials were aware of the smuggling, or even assisted it, that makes them criminals, but it doesn't make them racists. There's no Mengele in this story, and it serves no good purpose to spread the idea that this was just another racist plot to exterminate black people.


Point taken.

But there is evil in believing the "government created AIDS" story, too. People may avoid screening or treatment, due to their suspicions of the government's motives. It's not as harmful as saying "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" or "AIDS can be cured by having sex with virgins," but we'd be better off if the truth were known, and all of these false rumors discredited.

Way to go Jobius. Instead of asking NT for a source or doing your own research, you sort of left it there for someone else to clean up.

It seems you may have an ax to grind.

Ah, the power of suggestion at work.