Oh yes, on Tuesday he certainly did. (Much more specificity, I'd say.) I really posted that "in any way viewed as anti-anything" quote because 1) it's funny, 2) it makes McCain look silly, reinforcing nighttimer's point, and 3) I'd quoted it earlier in the thread, but hadn't noticed that McCain actually did get slightly more specific when he mentioned the Catholic issue.


This is why I thought it was important for Obama to address the AIDS issue, which he eventually did. I wouldn't hold it against him if he heard it from Reverend Wright some Sunday, and just thought, "let it pass." People say a lot of stupid things within earshot of each of us, and we can't spend our whole lives correcting or arguing with them. Sometimes you have to turn your head and pretend not to hear what they said.

But as your linked WaPo article shows, there are adverse consequences when large numbers of people believe that the health care system is out to get them, and people who look like them. It's not an issue that's mentioned very often in the mainstream news. It's somewhere out in the minefield of "potentially racist," where white men fear to tread. Obama was in a unique position to confront it, and eventually he did. Not as soon as I would have liked, and unfortunately, it's gotten approximately no attention from the media. They'd rather talk about the bad blood between Wright and Obama, and whether Hillary sponsored Wright's National Press Club conference, and, yawn....



As a radical moderate myself, I should take exception to your harsh denunciation of the mushy middle. But I actually agreed with most of it, and enjoyed it to the end. Thanks.

It should be no surprise to you that I strongly deny I am "distorting" anything. McCain said it would be fine with him if American troops stayed in Iraq for maybe a hundred years. That's McCain being Mr. Straight Talker. Nobody needs clarifying on what he meant. Listen to what he said. Yes, he added a caveat: as long as our troops weren't being killed. But who the hell believes that is going to happen?

Iraq is not South Korea or Japan or Germany. Iraq has never had a democratic government and there are numerous forces and factions within and without Iraq who will spend their every waking moment trying to destroy the "new" Iraq.

That is the one thing McCain has said in this entire campaign that will haunt him right up to the first Tuesday in November. And it should. It was a brain-dead, senior moment, off-the-cuff, stupid thing to say and you can bet his advisers were slapping themselves in the forehead as soon as he did.

The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."

After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.

In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, "There's the general election campaign ad." He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years..... link

That's the risk you take with a candidate who brags about how he "talks straight." Straight talk means the risk of going off-message. McCain probably wasn't reading from a teleprompter or notes that night in New Hampshire. He was doing what he looked like in the video clips: shuffling around slowly like a zombie from Night of the Living Dead, dressed casually and speaking extemporaneously.

And he handed the Dems a one-liner they will beat him with like a rented mule for the rest of the presidential campaign. Don't call it a distortion. Call it what it was: a McCain brain fart and he's going to have to live with his screw-up (and keep trying to explain it away). But I can tell you Aquilla, my experience is the day after denials are never as forceful or believable as the original remark that gets you in trouble.

You don't think if Obama wns the nomination, the GOP and 527 groups won't be calling him "Bitter" Obama? McCain was a public event when he made his gaffe. At least when Obama's mouth disengaged from his brain he was at a private fundraiser with some expectation what he said would say in that room. How did he know some doofus decided to record without his knowledge? Sucks to be him. In today's modern age, you have to assume somebody is watching or listening or taping or recording every breath you take and every move you make and even more so if you happen to be running for something.

Call it "distorting" McCain's remarks to your little old heart's content, Aquilla. As a McCain supporter that's what you're supposed to do because you know how bad it sounds. But before you do, you'd better be prepared to accept the fact that what the GOP is doing as it runs attack ads in North Carolina using snippets of Reverend Wright's remarks to go after Democrats that don't even know him is every bit as much of a distortion.



What's all this "my friend" stuff? You channeling your inner McCain or something?

Everybody says, "Oh, I want to run a positive campaign" and "I want to debate the issues, not personalities." Well, that sounds real nice, but nobody but old ladies and complete novices believe any of that crap. Obama and Clinton and McCain may say they want to rise above the usual politics of personal destruction and soundbites and attack ads, but they work.

When you're in a knife fight there are only two rules: First, bring a knife. Second, you'd better be prepared to get cut. If Obama loses the nomination or the general election, it's not over for him. He can go back to the Senate and stay there for another eight or 12 years and come back with not as much buzz, but considerably more gray hair and gravitas.

For McCain this is his last ride at the carnival. A loss for him means he's finished. I don't even think he'd want to go back to the Senate. He seems bored with it. I think he'd just as soon hang it up and end his days spending his wife's fortune.

As for Hillary, who cares? The longer this drags on and the more she runs like a Republican the deader she is for me. I am almost totally out of patience with The Clintons. If they want the presidency badly enough to split the Democratic Party apart, I'm almost ready to let them have it.

Aquilla, the very last person I would come "whining" to is a guy who not only thought The Swift Boat Liars were right, but gave money for them to do their dirt. I know you're proud of the part they played in defeating John Kerry. That's just the way hardball politics are played. It's like the line from The Godfather, "It's not personal. It's strictly business."

However, as the Swifties demonstrated how effective a 527 can be, don't YOU start whining about Move On and George Soros and every other lefty that wants a piece of McCain's pelt going after your boy. Playing the innocent now isn't going to cut it, "my friend." Your guys wrote this song. Don't be surprised someone else wants to cover it.

Hello everyone.....

One stupid question..where are the moderators?



How in the world can the people here get away with changing the subject to John McCain when he has NOTHING to do with the relationship between Wright and Obama? Why not do the PROPER thing and quit blowing smoke up everyones rear end trying to cover for Obama's bad choice in people to associate with and start a new thread on the evils of John McCain rather than sidetracking or put spin/damage control on something that you cannot defend or make excuses for.

Reading this thread so far one has to question the sanity of people trying to cover for Obama's 20 YEAR relationship etc etc etc by comparing it to McCain. It smells of complete desperation, much like the DNC does most of the time for no apparent reason than complete and total lunacy.

Off my soapbox....

Whoa... lilly white? Just because you happen to lean more toward the beliefs of McCain's supporters does not make them lilly white in comparison. And what position does West fill on Obama's staff?

He is an advisor. Presumably a friend as well. And I am fairly sure (although not certain) that Obama does not share his views – but you have to question the judgment of Obama in having him on staff – even unpaid – knowing where he comes from and things he believes in.

"Ogletree has advised Obama on reforming the criminal-justice system as well on constitutional issues. He is a member of the Obama campaign's black advisory council, which also includes Cornel West, who teaches African-American studies at Princeton University. "
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/080331nj1.htm


http://posthumousluger.com/?p=99


http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/b1b2aac...e7-713842353a95

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/20...im-in-his-camp/

BoF, you didn't highlight talking points, you highlighted facts. Obama was a member of that church for more than 20 years. "20 years" isn't a talking point. Obama "had" a close relationship with Wright. It's a fact. Wright "was" his spiritual and personal adviser. It's a fact, not a talking point. You can't take common phrases and accurate lables and call them talking points to further your position. The only thing being repeated are facts. The fall out will continue, and it will continue to hurt Obama's campaign whether we debate it here or not.

I just checked the web and my “land dictionary.”

I can’t find a single definition that says “talking points” can’t be fact.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talking+point


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Talking+Points


http://www.yourdictionary.com/talking-point

Now from my land dictionary, The New Oxford American Dictionary:


I listed three media sources that have repeated this talking point. It would be easy to find more.

Including you, scubatim. I counted eight members and who have repeated the same talking point and I didn't even looking at the other Wright threads.

It seems to me that this has been honed in on in the media and translates verbatim to as a “talking point.” Dan Quayle dis spell potato, "potatoe."n That was fact but it became a talking point, with those "on message" hammering home the point, regardless of significance, day after day after. day It became a feeding frenzy. That's what I see happening with the Wright story.

So, ok, I concede the point that Wright was Obama’s pastor for 20 years. So what. What else could you add to the discussion other than repeating the same thing over and over and over again ad nauseam.

BTW: Ringo Starr of The Beatles sang about “I'll get by with a little help from my friends.” With a little help from a true friend, I come to the conclusion that I cannot counter 40 or 50 fly by posts by as many as half a dozen people. So. I am going to slow down, take my time, post less and work on things. Many of you would well to follow suit. My friend provided a needed kick in the butt. Remember it takes a special friend to get through. That friend knows who I’m talking about but, it wasn’t you scubatim. I’ve also realized I can’t, because of physical limitations associated with arthritis, sit here and counter posts tit for tat. No more ping-pong matches.

So, I am now going to get dressed and go to the coffee shop. All I can say is take a number and I’ll get back to you when I can.

BoF just doesn't get it, I heard on the news today that a national poll indicates over 50% of Americans believe Obama shares Rev. Wright's views. I read this article this morning that introduces the strike out where Obama failed on this issue resulting in the poll numbers
Read the entire article here along with comments http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LindaCh...ittle,_too_late

Another article that clearly points out the flaws of Obama's actions relating to Rev. Wright
Read the entire article here http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Charles...ral_equivalence

Edited to add: I want to correct the first statement on the poll statement: I double checked and found that to be untrue, yet a very high percentage have doubts of Obama's relationship with Wright. Here is a link to the poll: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339949,00.html

Edited to add: Just found the more recent article with negative indications. Read more here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353461,00.html

NT, there is no question, if you have read the Bible (not what passes for a Bible for your friend Wright), that God punishes nations for their sin. Whether what Falwell says is accurate, I do not know, but I would not discount that God will seek justice, and sometimes the unrepentent decline of our personal morality may bring great pain to us as a nation.


Psalm 94:9-11

9 Does he who implanted the ear not hear?
Does he who formed the eye not see?

10 Does he who disciplines nations not punish?
Does he who teaches man lack knowledge?

11 The LORD knows the thoughts of man;
he knows that they are futile.



You again make that giant leap over the moat and you fall into the water: Obama and Wright have a close, intimate, personal relationship of 20 years. Obama quotes Wright in Dreams; Obama entitled his second book after one of Wright's sermons. These guys were tight long before Obama entered politics and may be so long after Obama is just a name in a history book, although they do seem a bit at odds now. Wright is attached to Obama at the heart and at the mind.

The fact that McCain got an endorsement from Hagee, a guy he'll likely not talk to again for 4 years, is an entirely different level of attachment. Hagee is a rabid Zionist and I feel confident McCain's buddy Lieberman had a hand in this endorsement, as someone said above. I don't like it, but I also know Hagee will have very little if any influence over McCain.

But, we all know, getting an endorsement from someone or some group, when you get hundreds if not thousands of them during the course of a campaign, and being someone's close, personal, intimate friend for 20 years, someone you call an "old Uncle", is entirely different--and you know it.

Give it up--it makes you look tired....

What is the problem with Wright's God damn America, then? Does it boil down to the fact that Wright's interpretation of Psalm 94:9-11 doesn't include Falwell and Nixon's trifecta (gays, Jews and commies)?

Can't we slap each other on the back and exhort one another to go all the way with intolerant religious interpretations? You don't have to take it personal when a preacher targets people and concepts you care about, y'know. There must be another side to that coin and Rev. Wright is as good as any left-wing figure.

Can't we all just get along in a melting pot of selective intolerance and bigotry?

When discussing politics and the damage done the perception is what counts. I added an edit to my last post that contains data by party/race as to how each see this issue. You should read the stats on this poll to understand how "voters" view it rather than from a personal viewpoint, take a moment to read the stats here http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353461,00.html

I read the article and it's a long poll you posted. I'm not gonna dispute independent opinion polls. Though why do you respond to me? I wrote a post addressing a double standard between left-wing and right-wing religious ideologues and dragging the Bible into this to save face.

I guess I brought up the poll because I thought it had relevance to the thread. I talked about Hagee earlier on another post and I don't do bible verses nor want to take sides for any religious viewpoint. When different people read the bible they take away different points of view on what is written. I mentioned earlier that probably more Southern Baptists Blacks probably agree with Hagee more than they do with Rev. Wright.

OK I'm babbling but the point I was trying to make was that individual standards on religion do not fall left or right, they are either in the mainstream or out of the mainstream. Do you consider some beliefs to be left wing and right wing, sorry I don't. There is simply religion and when speaking of Christian religion it isn't divided into left and right ideologies, or I don't think it is anyway. If a Southern Baptist liberal Black believes like Hagee is Hagee left wing or is the liberal black in the wrong church? The poll makes more sense than talking about religion.

quick, save your Bible-thumping fire and brimstone bullcrap for someone who wants to read it. My religious beliefs are none of your business.

We do not debate religion on this board and I definitely do not need someone like you trying to preach and proselytize to me. Keep your sin and salvation to yourself.

Once, you get to slide. Repeat it and I will report your post to a Moderator.

I don't think Wright was questioning Obama's sincerity - at least not intentionally. I think he was making excuses for Obama's having to distance himself from the beleaguered pastor. Wright is an Obama supporter, remember? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Wright was simply paraphrasing a conversation he had with Obama himself - though I'm sure the senator would've put it more smoothly than "having to say what politicians say".


But I wouldn't put myself in that position, Doc - and I doubt you would either. The relationship with Wright should have been nipped in the bud months ago. The Obama campaign should have been proactive on this - as Wright himself suggested they might need to be over a year ago. If you know your relationship with someone could be a liability, you get in front of the issue. The Obama campaign has been nothing but reactive regarding Wright - usually a day late and a dollar short.

Come on, Doc, if you'd known someone well enough to consider them "family" for nearly twenty years, knew that they held some opinions that would be considered "controversial" by the local news in middle America, knew that they could be something of a loose cannon, someone who told you they could be a political liability - and with whom you agreed on that - would you have sat back waiting to see what might happen? And if something did happen, would you be as unprepared to deal with it as Obama clearly was and has continued to be? Were you considering a national political career, would you not have started distancing yourself from someone as potentially inflammatory as Rev. Wright before you even started - or been fully prepared to defend the relationship and stand by that defense? Would you have made such a person a member of your campaign team? If nothing else, would you not try to be in control of the message? Sorry, it'll take some convincing to get me to believe that your judgment is worse than Barack Obama's.


Again, I don't think Wright intended to question Obama's sincerity - he just lifted the veil for a moment, I suspect inadvertently. "Fool me twice"? When did Wright "fool" Obama the first time? When two-year-old clips that had been posted to the TUCC web site started appearing on YouTube? It's not like Wright is an opponent here - he's been campaigning for Obama, even from the pulpit. And Obama sure didn't seem to mind so long as it was working to his advantage. And he didn't mind using Wright to pander to the Christian vote - so long as it was working to his advantage.

It would have been a "political expedient" for Obama to have "divorced himself from Wright" two years ago, a year ago, after Wright's December sermon, after the YouTube clips started gaining traction, when first asked about the comments, when subsequently asked about the comments, when he gave his belated address on race, or when Wright responded to that address. Unless Obama was prepared to stand by Rev. Wright to the end, a "divorce" anywhere along the way is a political expedient. It's just that it could have been done before it became a defining issue on the national stage - or shouldn't have been done at all.

More than thirteen months ago, Rev. Wright said in an interview (quoted in an article that had already mentioned "controversial statements" and references to "anti-Americanism"):
Obama and Wright were discussing a "political expedient" then.


I wouldn't have expected the integrity of a "different kind of politician" who wants "to change the way things are done in Washington" to be questioned by a long-term intimate. But as it may have been, however inadvertently, it's worth asking whether or not Sen. Obama's integrity should be questioned. Is Wright's implicit suggestion that Obama is parsing his words, his positions, and his relationships for political reasons true or not?

In any event, that's certainly not the point that's being picked up on by the media - the focus has remained on Wright's "extremism", not on the implied questions of Obama's integrity or sincerity. So far, I've heard very little follow-up on Wright's purported portrayal of Obama's "values and beliefs" as "political posturing" [Obama's words, not Wright's], though it seems to be creeping into some of the commentary in the last day or so. But it's not being cited as the reason for Obama's more definitive disowning of Rev. Wright; it's the pastor's "hatred" and "racism" and "anti-Americanism" that has been the much-hailed justification for Obama's severing of ties.



I heard someone say earlier this week that Obama needed Wright to make him "blacker" - now he needs to sacrifice Wright to make him "whiter" again. I don't know if that's exactly the case (though Obama's relative "blackness" was certainly a concern of the campaign fairly early on), but I think it's nearer the truth than "this is not the man I've known for twenty years". I'm seeing Wright as the injured party here - though I have been more sympathetic to his position from the outset.

Amlord, Wertz, and Rev. Wright - talk about strange bedfellows!

The question now might be whether or not the "Jeremiah Wright fallout" will have any impact on the black vote: has Obama become "too white" again? So far, it looks like it hasn't had an impact (at least not in North Carolina), so Obama may have struck the right balance. We'll see how he continues to fare with white working class types who might have been nervous about The Wright Stuff. Maybe the timing of the "political expedient" will pay off...

Wright hasn't said anything different in the past week than he preached from the pulpit for decades. Obama didn't disown him then, why now? Did he come out with anything more divisive or anti-American in his Press Club speech? I didn't see it. Was he any more radical in his Moyer interview? I didn't hear it.

So what make Obama throw him under the bus now, when he wouldn't do it back when this all came to light? Or even more importantly, when he was sitting in the pew and listening to his bile in the first place.

Some wonder why I think Obama is one of the biggest frauds ever to be put forth to American voters. All you have to do is trim away the make-up his handlers apply each morning to see why. Get him away from his prepared speeches to get a glimpse of the real deal. Hell, read his socialist, racially divisive beliefs in his own words in the book he wrote before he got into this race.

According to the party polls, super delegates and Democratic Party elites Obama is still their man, he must be the nominee or the Democratic Party will end as we know it. He will surely lose the general election due to damage done by Wright unless Wright comes out and destroys him in the next 24 hours. I watched a friend of Wright condemn him and thought I'd share this with you folks, consider this is provocation for Wright to come out and stick up for his position, oh will he? If he doesn't he is covering for Obama and if he does he destroys Obama. http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html...p;sMPlaylistID=

You brought up the Rev. Falwell and his viewpoint, my friend, and I was showing you the Biblical basis for the notion that God punishes nations for their sins. Whether 9-11 was such punishment and whether Falwell's viewpoint is remotely accurate, I do not know, but I DO KNOW that if you don't like the commentary, don't bring up the point. Please, report it to anyone you'd like to, NT, my indignant, self-righteous, friend.





Sometimes, Lesly, how you say something is at least as important as what you say. Don't you agree? Wouldn't you respond differently to someone who shouted at you, "God damn you, Lesly", than to someone who said, "Lesly, you may have overstepped your bounds here"? I know I would.

Also, Falwell is condemning a failure of personal morality among some Americans and indicating God may act upon that failture; Wright is condemning our entire domestic and foreign policy--our entire nation--and saying OBL attacked because of it. Painting with such a broad brush, in any event, is not likely to sit well with anyone who doesn't feed from the Democracy Now! trough.

I do not think anyone can know whether 9-11 was God's punishment for anything. I think making such commentary, be it Falwell or Wright or someone else, is dangerous because they cannot know, either. Also, Wright says all of our nation's sins emanate from the "evil" white man--also not likely to sit well with any of us who are white. But, the principle that God holds nations accountable for their sins is very Biblical.

Of course, in the context of this thread, Falwell is not McCain's pastor and doesn't have an intimate, 20 year personal relationship with McCain--so who cares what Rev. Falwell thinks in the context of this campaign? He'll have little or no influence on McCain. It is just another in a long line of red herrings NT dredges up from his grab bag of "NT's hopelessly wrong, wildly stretched, miserably weak analogies" in an attempt to save his man Obama....

At the beginning of the "Principles and Personal Philosophy" section, has a blurb that reads:


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showforum=15

There is often a thin line between what is religious debate and what is political debate - times when it is almost obvious that ministers or churches have enter political controversies.

In my opinion, quoting the Bible and interpreting the Bible to show the basis of Falwell's remarks clearly crosses that line. You are presuming that other member consider the Bible the final, infallible source - case closed. As a bumper sticker I used to see down here in Texas, "The Buckle on the Bible Belt," to quote H. L. Mencken, said:


Many of us, including me, do not take this view and consider our own resources sufficient without playing the "Bible Card." To us the Bible is just a book, or more accurately, an anthology of smaller books. There's a controversy about which books to put in the anthology - called the canon - and even disagreement about which translation is appropriate. So, when someone draws a Bible out of its holster and starts shooting, my first question is "which Bible"?

I personally think you should direct such remarks to the suggested forum.

I join and stand beside my friend nighttimer's complaint.

Your Bible thumping is offensive. Find another pulpit, please.

Arf! Except when God speaks it sounds a lot like the wind sighing through the trees. Or like waves breaking on the beach, or like celestial spheres ringing. Interpret that.

Anyway, looks obvious to me that the Wright thing is staying alive because of the constant bantering about it on television. Maybe that is swaying those who are still glued to the boob-box.

Eh, it's still early. Conventions this summer folks, then months until November. Should Obama get the nomination, then the Republicans will be crowing ever louder about how un-American he is, just like they were crowing about those against the Iraq liberation. Then we'll see how this un-American thing goes over after more than five years of Iraq.

But I've got blooming bulbs going on in the gardens! Seems to be more important than what some preacher is spouting. The earth is waking up around here, slowly due to the little cold snap we're having, but steadily. A pigmy nuthatch has decided to build her nest in our house (cedar siding). Talk about your endorsements, there's a good one.

That's probably how this whole thing will work out. Right now the furnace still has to run, but by June it'll be off. Hot time in the cities this summer, and then onward to fall. New year, new president . . .

Yep, that's how it works all right.

If I were running this campaign on the Democratic side, I'd try to stick to the argument that voting Republican is voting for the same old thing, different face. Who knows, maybe that'll happen once the primaries are over. For now its just a bunch of forced hot air.

This is an accurate assessment.

Dan Abrams had an hour special on this last night and MSNBC, being the lazy outfit that it is, is replaying it right now.

This is close to becoming a "feeding frenzy " within Larry Sabato's definition.

You ask a lot of questions here, Wertz, but as they're directed to Doclotus and not me, I'll leave them for him to answer. But I have two questions for you.

1. How precisely does Obama attempt to "control" the "goddamn America" speech?

Reverend Wright is not answerable to Barack Obama. Obama says he wasn't present when that particular sermon was given and no one has come up with another version of events that places him there. Rather than Obama's judgment being questionable, he could more accurately be accused of being naive for not considering Wright would be used to slam him. His advisers also dropped the ball for not seeing how damaging those statements could be.

Sure, Obama could have said, "Oh, by the way, my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright? The guy you know who married Michelle and I, baptized my kids, shaped my religious faith and from whom I took the title, 'The Audacity of Hope' from? Well, he's made some remarks in the past, that might be considered just a bit off the wall. But you shouldn't be too concerned about it. He really doesn't mean all the crazy stuff he says and at any rate, I don't believe it."

Yes, he could have gotten out in front of the controversy sooner and attempted to diminish the damage by doing so, but as Wright has shown, he isn't the shrinking violet type who allows himself to be "handled." Obama might have been able to minimize the effect Wright has had on his campaign, but contain it completely and control it? I have my doubts. Should he have cut Wright off at the ankles in his March race speech? Maybe, but he would have been ripped by the Black community for throwing Wright to the howling right-wing wolf pack. Obama was going to have to give up some blood on this one way or the other. It is yet undetermined whether it's just a deep cut or a fatal slash to a major artery.

Then again, if he can't navigate his way through this crisis he probably doesn't deserve to be President of the United States.

2. When was Reverend Wright a member of Obama's campaign team?

To the best of my knowledge Reverend Wright was never a member of Team Obama. He was one of 130 spiritual leaders listed as part of Obama's African American Religous Leadership Committee. If you are in possession of evidence that Wright was part of Obama's campaign team, could you please produce it?



Any chance of you sharing with the vast majority of non-The Audacity of Hope readers some of Barack Obama's "socialist, racially divisive beliefs, Holdingtheline?"

Or are we supposed to just go by what you say?



Oh, no worries there, but what's up with all the bold print, quick?

I brought up the late and unlamented Reverend Jerry Falwell as an example of right-wing religious intolerance. You're the one who attempted to turn it into a lame Sunday School lesson. My point was valid. Your psuedo-preaching was not.

And while I may be "your friend," be assured that you are not "my friend." I am not friends with people who harbor the anger, resentment and hatred of African Americans you do.



Say, about those hopelessly wrong, wildly stretched, miserably weak analogies, how are your various Dreams From My Father hit threads going?

NT I have to give you an A+ for your loyalty for Barry! All the polls indicate your conclusions are wrong and only continuous TV backing from die-hard Barry supporters that do softball interviews to throw perfume on crap keep him as high up in the polls as he is.

Here is an article that best puts into words what the majority of unhyphenated Americans feel in their heart about Barry.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGil...is_really_right

Shamwow! Made in Africa, you know those Africans make great stuff. Don't be fooled by imitators! Maybe more or larger flags in the background with CNN, MSNBC and women's TV show hosts can fool some of you but don't be fooled by imitators.

Edited to explain:"Shamwow! Made in Africa, you know those Africans make great stuff. Don't be fooled by imitators!" Southside Chicago=Africa and stuff=politicans.

Wow, NT, pretty bloody imagery. Makes me think of the tune John the Revelator.

Not Son House, Pretty Good For White Boys

Lyrics and Links

And you have a good point that if Obama can't get through the Wright issue, he probably shouldn't be POTUS. But I don't think this will be a problem as the year works out.

You see, there's a passion going on. Seems you've embraced it early, not surprised at that. I'm probably too old to get all worked up about it, more excited about a little bird building a nest in the side of the house, trying to capture video of it and spooking the critter off with the scary thing in my hand (that's a camera, dear perverts), thinking of putting up a Web site of bare naked chics later on. Could be a hit.

John the Revelator. Huh.

New polls out and Wright's damage continues to pull Obama down

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

Based on this poll I suggest that Obama will lose NC by 5% and IN by 9-10% and then WV will see him lose 77-23%, KY a R state will also tank for Obama and the news will be full of "WHY". Answering the question will heap on to his defeat with his only hope being OR, SD or MT. I see a candidate life expectancy problem in the Democratic Party or a party split within double digit days.

I don’t understand your prognostication, Zack.

In a subsection of Scott Rasmussin’s poll you linked, Clinton leads Obama 41% to 46% in Indiana. This still leaves 13% undecided. This poll was done on May 1. The margin of error is + or - 5%.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...ocratic_primary

In North Carolina, Obama leads Clinton by 49% to 40%. That leaves 11% undecided. The margin of error is + or - 4%.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...ocratic_primary

In Oregon, Obama leads 51% to 39% as of May 3. That leaves 10% undecided. The margin of error is + or - 3%.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...ocratic_primary

Keep in mind that Rasmussin generally favors Republicans more than Democrats. You will note that over a long stretch of time, Rasmussin has had Bush’s approval ratings about 5 percentage points higher than the average of the other polls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...-904.html#polls

For your predictions to be true, Zack,nearly all the undecideds would have to break for Clinton or people are simply lying to the pollsters.

You are sort of like a sponge, Zack. You absorb that information you want to and ignore the rest. I would suggest the sponge is saturated.

When I see your dire predictions for Democrats, I think of this post you made during your first tour of duty on .

Remember this thread?
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...c=15877&hl=

Judging from Bush's long list of complaints about Congress in his latest press conference,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20080429-1.html

it seems you were wrong then. I think you are wrong now.

It’s not quite Armageddon for Democrats or Obama.


Based on your bizarre interpretation of Rasumssin's polls from May 1-3, I would suggest that you get what you want to get including the doom and gloom conspiracy theories.

A few words.

I don't think Obama will lose NC. NC is Obama's base: an educated state with a large black population. I just don't see him losing there, no matter what the national poll numbers are doing.

BUT, I think you are right about West Virginia. The only problem with your analysis is that Oregon and KT vote on the same day -- and I expect him to win Oregon, too.

I'm expected Obama/Clinton to split NC/Indiana, then she takes WV before they both split Oregon/KT. I don't know who will win SD, but I can't see Montana breaking for Hillary Clinton. That would be like Northern Ireland breaking for the pope.

Frankly, I'm going to step out on a limb and say Hillary isn't going to win this no matter what happens between Jeremiah Wright and Obama. No matter what. I say that as someone who is anxiously and meticulously watching this race, hoping for an Obama pull-out/worried about a clinton win/infinitely more worried about a John McCain win. But I don't think she's going to be able to do this one. There are just too many congressional districts that rely on AA turnout. She'd have to pick up a huge majority of super-delegates, which she hasn't proven able to do, even as Obama slides into the mud before our very eyes. Unless he lost every single state between now and PR -- and he could conceivably win PR, by the way* -- I just don't see how the delegates could break decisively for her.


*I'm saying this both on polling and on my own observation of the PR community in New York City. For months we've been told that the Latino vote is resistant to Barack, but this argument glosses over the diversity of the "Latino" community. Moreover, I think it's possible that Puerto Ricans in say, Miami, are Floridians before they are Puerto Ricans, in some aspects. I've never been to PR but I can imagine how PRs at home vote differently than PRs in America, who certainly vote differently than say, Mexicans in SW Texas or California.

I wasn't suggesting Obama could or should "control" Jeremiah Wright or any of his extracted and often decontextualized pronouncements. I suggested he should have "controlled the message" - his message.


Whether Obama was present at any of Rev. Wright's sermons is irrelevant. He knew what was in the sermons. If he didn't, he should have known if he'd sat before Wright's pulpit for nearly twenty years; he should have known if he'd read the coverage of his campaign and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright in the New York Times over a year ago (which mentioned Wright's "anti-American" sentiments); he should have known if he'd listened to his own conversations with Wright in which the pastor warned the candidate that he'd have to "distance himself" from him. If nothing else, he should have known that Wright's sermons were posted to the TUCC website and were therefore in the public domain: he should have known what anyone in the world with an internet connection could know. There comes a point when such colossal "naiveté" crosses the border into judgment territory.


But that's essentially what he did say - he just waited to say it until the damage was nigh irreparable. Had I been Obama, though, I don't think I would've made quite so much of who married me and baptized my kids and shaped my religious faith - even if I did feel it necessary to establish some sort of "Christian credentials". Let's not forget, it wasn't Jeremiah Wright associating himself with Barack Obama, it was Barack Obama associating himself with Jeremiah Wright. If the senator hadn't spent a year building up the relationship with Wright, he wouldn't now need to be spending so much time dismantling it. Again, poor judgment - in my opinion, appallingly poor judgment.

If I were running for the presidency as an openly gay candidate, my judgment would tell me well in advance that homosexuality was going to figure in the election cycle. (Can we all - except Sen. Obama, presumably, - say "duh"?) I would not have waited for more than thirteen months after declaring my candidacy to address the issue in any meaningful way. I would have known in advance that some of my most intimate associates held opinions that many would find "controversial". I have close friends who believe that "gay marriage" is a pointless, assimilationist emulation of heterosexuality and that the institution of marriage itself should be abolished, who believe that everyone is gay and just won't admit it to themselves, who believe that gay men and lesbians are intellectually superior to heterosexuals, who believe that AIDS was created by the US government to target gay men - I could go on. And my judgment would have told me that their opinions would figure in the campaign and that I had better get in front of such issues and make my position very well known - well before any of them were interviewed or had their positions broadcast. I would acknowledge areas of agreement, but I would make my disagreement crystal clear. It would be the first thing my campaign tackled, not the last. I would admit that many in the gay community hold views with which many Americans disagree - and that many such people were among my close friends. I would make it absolutely clear which of those views I supported and which I rejected - and I would stick to those views. Making such things clear is not difficult - and the sooner addressed, the better. That's not rocket science - and it only requires a modicum of good judgment. And such judgment, to my mind, has been singularly lacking in the Obama campaign.

If nothing else, I could not possibly suggest that I reject whatever it might be that people find "controversial" without specifying what any of those things are. To me, that is nothing more than transparent political maneuvering, without a shred of personal conviction. As I've said before, though, I don't think there's a living human of voting age to whom Barack Obama would not pander - and here he's trying to play both sides at once. That doesn't make him different from any other politician, to be sure, but the rest of them are not trying to sell themselves as "different". And it's a bill of goods.


Sometime before mid-March, 2007, Obama and Wright agreed that a certain "distancing" might need to occur. It should have occurred then. If it had, I doubt that more than a Band-Aid would have been required at this stage.


There I can but agree.



The figure of 130 refers to the state members in South Carolina. Rev. Wright was actually one of fifty national members of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee, which is an official part of his campaign. It's right there in the first sentence of the item you cited: "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign today unveiled its African American Religious Leadership Committee." And Wright, for what it's worth, was the only member listed as "Senator Barack Obama's Pastor", which raises his profile on that committee a bit, no?

Granted, the African American Religious Leadership Committee was not a hand-on, day-to-day part of the official campaign, but it is a central and extremely important component of the campaign (and possibly the main reason that Obama has done so well within the black community - why black Americans finally "got it"). In the overall scheme of the primary process, Jeremiah Wright was a far more key and central figure in both Obama's life and his official campaign than voluntary state fund-raiser Geraldine Ferraro was to the Clinton campaign. But, hey, if everyone in the Obama camp stops calling Ferraro part of Clinton's official campaign, I'll cease and desist in my (at least) equally accurate description of Jeremiah Wright as a member of Obama's official campaign. Deal?

Zack, two friendly suggestions:

Don't try to act Black. You're as White as a jar of mayonnaise.

Don't quote from terrible writers who use ancient slang like, "fo shizzle." Fo shizzle is so played out. Even Snoop Dogg doesn't say dumb stuff like that anymore.

FO SHIZZLE:

1. A "trendy" slang term made up by Snoop Dog meaning "For sure" and all that jazz.

2. A term that people use to TRY to be trendy, like rich nerds.

3. A term someone uses to annoy the @#*$ out of you because the term gets very annoying when repeated.

Person A: Fo shizzle!
Person B: Shut the hell up, that word is so old!
Person A: Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle Fo shizzle!





That limb is actually pretty secure, drewyorktimes.

Here's a rule I would like every political reporter, campaign official, TV talking head, and politician in the United States to follow. Go ahead and say, if you like, that Hillary Clinton retains a serious chance of winning the Democratic nomination. If you say this, however, you must describe a set of circumstances whereby this could happen. Try not to make it sound like a fairy tale.

The only number that matters, however, is 2,025, which is how many delegates a candidate will need to secure the nomination. Obama has 1,488 primary delegates to Clinton's 1,334, according to the Associated Press delegate tracker. Add in superdelegates and Obama has 1,736 to Clinton's 1,602. Obama needs 289 more delegates to win the nomination. Hillary needs 423. There are three ways to win these additional delegates:

1. In the nine Democratic primaries and caucuses that remain, in which about 400 delegates are at stake

2. By winning over still-undecided superdelegates, of whom about 290 remain

3. By persuading the necessary number of superdelegates and/or primary delegates among the 1,736 pledged to Obama to change their allegiances. The former will be difficult to achieve, and the latter, though permitted, will be extremely difficult to achieve

It's numerically impossible for Hillary to get to 2,025 through the remaining primaries and caucuses. In theory, Obama could get to 2,025 that way, but to do so he'd need to capture, on average, 71 percent of the vote in every remaining contest, according to Slate's "Delegate Calculator." That obviously isn't going to happen. Hence the relentless press focus on the superdelegates. They will almost certainly choose the nominee.

This is an important point, so I'm going to repeat it. The longer a superdelegate waits to choose, the likelier he'll choose whoever the primaries and caucuses chose.

link




At the risk of appearing to be something I am definitely not (homophobic), let me say something that fits into what I am (realistic). The odds of you Wertz, as a proudly and openly gay man or any proud and openly gay man or woman becoming a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States as the nominee a major political party is somewhere between slim and none (and slim just left town).

Someday it will happen. But when it does I expect both of us to be far older than we are now.

If a country as still at odds with itself over sexism and racism resists so fiercely a White woman and a Black man jousting for the title of Commander-in-Chief, America would rise up in open revolt over the prospect of a lesbian or homosexual in the Oval Office. The fear and hatred of homosexuals is still far too rabid for any candidate to come out gay and not get the living hell beat out of him or her.

That was a nicely crafted paragraph you wrote contrasting your gay identity with Obama's---what?---flawed judgment with Wright?---but the two comparisons really don't match. If America is struggling to find out if it's ready for a Chief Executive of a different race or gender than what has been the norm, it certainly isn't ready for one of a different sexual orientation than what is considered "normal." Your judgment should tell you the odds against a openly gay man getting elected as POTUS are so astronomical most computers can't begin to crunch the numbers.

I'd hold off the White House until the NFL has its first openly gay superstar quarterback.



No.

If you search the linked document, Reverend Wright is the last name on a alphabetical list and that is the only place his name appears in the entire document. That doesn't strike me as a "raising his profile" at all. It merely states a fact.

There is nothing to indicate Wright enjoyed a bigger chair at the table or that he had a direct hotline to The Obama Phone. I will have to research further to find out if Wright was the chairman of the committee, how often they met, when and what they actually advised Obama on and what part did Wright play. Otherwise, all this committee may be is a list of distinguished clergy that was a ad hoc group with no real influence on the campaign's daily workings.



Thanks for granting the African American Religious Leadership Committee was not part of the official campaign. That's something I suppose.

However, I disagree that a grocery list of clergy enabled Black America to "get it." Winning the Iowa caucuses went a long way to dispelling the cynicism that Whites would not support a Black presidential candidate. When Obama showed he could win in a state 96 percent Caucasian that was the wake-up call Negroes had been waiting for.

I agree with half of your statement about Wright and Geraldine (I'm still waiting for my apology) Ferraro. Wright was a far more key and central figure in Obama's life than Ferraro was to Clinton, but I totally disagree Wright was a key and central figure in the official campaign. You have provided zero evidence proving Wright ever had an active role in the campaign pr was involved in the day-to-day operations, fundraising and strategy.

I know Rev. Wright said Hillary has never been called a "nigger," but has he suggested she's doing so well due to her sex as Rep. Ferraro did when she said Barack was only doing so well because of his race?

People were saying the same thing about a black man 10 years ago. And a black man is on the brink of being president.

But it's you that keep throwing out the sexism and racism charges. 92% of blacks vote for Obama. Isn't that racist or are we supposed to believe it's not because of his skin color? 80% of women vote for Hillary. Isn't that sexist or are we supposed to believe it's not because of her gender?

The only ones that seem to care about race or gender is you, NT. Your average white guy democrat is voting for the person he thinks is best. Hell, this republican is going to vote for a democrat based on performance - not anything else.