Probably and the elitist-bitter business didn't help. I think he was on a roll to victory in Pa and then these nonsubstantive side issues diverted his momentum and in fact turned things the other way.

I still think Obama will win the nomination. I think both the finalists will come in with huge negatives.

With Obama it will be a host of wedge issues, inexperience and of course color.

With McCain it will be age, uncontrollable rages suggesting brain damage and his propensity to ingage in outrageous flip flops like his tax policy changes and of course the sorry record of his predecessor.

Obama SHOULD be a slam dunk by any reasonable objective standard. But the influence of wedge issues and the force of identity politics can't be underrated.

Pat Buchanan, bigot that he may be, has got some pretty good insight on this one.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26226


So often in American politics perception trumps reality. McGovern, a very competent and honorable hero of the 2nd World War, got trounced by an incumbent who was nearly out of control and should have been in the docket for his misdeeds. But he got the radical out of touch label and lost. Things have changed somewhat with the internet and all and the economy is in a tailspin but still the PLU(People Like Us) identity factor plays a large roll in American politics.

Moyers expected “soft ball” interview with this raciest nut did nothing to move most people imo.

That has now been followed by Wright's ludicrous remarks at the National Press Club – where by the way this raciest, bigoted lunatic got a 5 minuet standing ovation – what the hell was that about.

In any case the man not only stood behind his remarks but implied that they were in line with the teachings of the “Black Church” and that Obama’s statements of repudiation have more to do with his running for President than his “real beliefs”.

Gee this man is really hurting Obama – and I am not sure he gives a dam – or cares – or is too stupid or egotistical to care.

I'm sad to say I must reluctantly concede that Reverend Wright has hurt Senator Obama with some voters.

The bloc of voters that would sooner cut off their right thumb than vote for a Black guy are gonzo and they're not coming back. Same thing with the inbred, mouth-breathing, toothless trailer trash that chase their sisters around the double wide. Yep, scratch 'em off the list too.

And the die-hard bigots with the gun racks in the truck and the Confederate flag in the rear window? Kiss them goodbye.

Of course, these people were never seriously considering voting for Obama anyway. John McCain can have all the redneck votes he can handle and God bless him.

Oh, by the way, Ted, it kind of undercuts your claim that Wright must be "stupid" when your post had at least four misspellings and even more punctuation errors.

Or did you really intend to call Reverend Wright "raciest" instead of a "racist?"

What's with the weird symbols, Ted?

It is unfortunate that some people are closing their minds to Senator Obama because of what his former pastor had said, which had absolutely nothing to do with his candidacy.
I know that this is having a negative effect, but the extent of it nobody knows.

I listened to what the Reverend Wright had to say yesterday. One thing he said that got my attention (and an amen!) was this:



What's that the pro-war, rah-rah-rah, Stay-at-Home Patriots like to say about the troops again? By Golly, every now and then these veterans of the armed forces (which some consider to be monolithic in their thinking) express themselves in ways that cause people to feel uncomfortable because they force us to take off our rose-colored glasses and sometimes rub our noses in the nitty gritty reality of politics and war. Good for them.

I agree with Nighttimer. Those who weren't going to vote for Obama anyway are taking umbrage with what Wright says. Just a scant month or two ago people still thought that Barack Obama was a Muslim! "Now" he's a Christian but hey, look at what his pastor said! There will always be something available to divert the public's attention away from the real issues that affect all Americans.

How sad that the issues always have to take a back seat to the hype.

Is the JW fallout continuing?
Yes. Maybe. I don't know.

Has/is it affecting Obama's "numbers" negatively, perhaps more than any other issue?
It doesn't look like it by Gallup's count.

Obama does almost as well as McCain when adults (though perhaps not voters or even people likely to vote; the article is unclear) were asked who looks down "on the average American" and "working-class Americans". Clinton comes in third. Support among bitter voters is unchanged, and it's still almost a dead heat between Clinton v. McCain and Obama v. McCain.

If there is fallout it's too soon to tell.

After watching Jon Stewart's "coverage" of Wright tonight I'm not sure the Rev. can hurt his candidacy, at least not by how Wright's performance is portrayed in the media. The interview with Moyer's was really sterile and composed for Wright. But the NAACP speech... my God, some of it was hysterical. So hysterical in fact that I can't help but wonder if Wright went out of his way to playact the crazy uncle in the attic and throw some scraps at the press. It was a dinner, not church.

Overall though, I thought the long, animated speech (typical of Baptist, evangelical and some protestant ministers) was a success and I agree with Christopher Bearn:

The furor over Wright so far is nothing compared with what Republicans will drum up in the fall. John McCain announced yesterday that despite hinting that he'd leave the Wright issue alone—he asked the North Carolina GOP not to air an ad denouncing Obama and Wright—he now thinks Wright is fair game. So much for the civility race. Given that, it's better for Wright to fight back and soften his image now than to allow his current image to calcify over the next six months. If he can go from Obama's crazy minister to Obama's controversial but thoughtful and witty minister, that will be a huge step in pre-empting the GOP onslaught.

What a historical moment of irony in American politics if Wright reminds too many voters of their own bombastic, crusading pastors. Aside from his terrible comment on AIDS this guy reminds me and could remind millions of non-Catholics of a man they listen to every Sunday.

This guy could give a rat's edit what anyone thinks of him and I can't help but admire this attitude.

Reverend Wright is nobody's "crazy uncle." He believes in a lot of things I don't, but I also admire his "You didn't make me and you can't break me" attitude.

I would like to see one-tenth of the "outrage" from those so appalled and disgusted by Reverend Wright for the anti-Catholic and anti-gay statements made by Reverend John Hagee.

There is no doubt that this slob--whose support McCain actively courted---is a bigot and a homophobe. But we hear not. one. word. of reproach from the sanctimonious hypocrites on Faux News and the other blah-blah-blah talking heads on the right (and the typing ones of ) as well.

Why is that? Why is Reverend Wright held to one standard and Reverend Hagee held to none at all? Could it be...racially motivated? Beat up on the Black man that served his country, but speak no evil about the White man who says Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath against the homosexuals in New Orleans. Where is McCain's "straight talk" now?

And speaking of Mr. Slacks-don't-reach-his-ankles, so much for his, "I want to run a clean campaign" crapola.

All I can tell you Jennifer is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly. link

Looks like McCain needs to rename his bus, "the Straight-Up Old Hypocrite Express." "Maverick" nothing. He's just another cheap hack politician who will sell out his principles just to get a bump in the polls.

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my last post, I support Hillary, not because she is conservative but because she has the ability to split apart the Democratic Party and end the Afro American blind voting block support for the party. There is no conservative candidate in the race so I will not, never ever support McCain. I'm not at all reluctant to have a black president but am reluctant to have a far left president. With the choices available I find a president Clinton to be the best alternative if she could be nominated at the cost of Obama's defeat by super delegates. The result would be the Afro American block support for Democratic Party would end and probably seek out a new direction or party to support, the far left would suffer a significant defeat with such an outcome, Bill and Hill would make those on the far left very sorry for outing them. Additionally, should Hillary be the "selected nominee" over Obama then the resulting party turnout would be less allowing for "conservatives" to take power in the senate and house, especially in 2010 after a dysfunctional Clinton administration put a new direction in the mainstream American voters mind, by 2012 the nation would be begging for conservative government as the unfunded liabilities came home to roost.

Obama will need more than Mike Huckabee's support to end his unelectable. I don't need to link polls or other supporting information that Obama's boat has a broken sail mast and is dead in the water, simply turn on the news and listen to the nothingness. The damage has been done, it is too late for Obama to take back anything, the super delegates simply have to choose Hillary if the Democratic Party has any hopes of winning in November.

nighttimer Have you considered this statement you made sounds rather racist?
If I made descriptive narrative of all of the Afro American voters that blindly pull the lever for Obama simply because they share the same hair and skin color it would be racist. Obama cannot be elected president of the US unless he represents "all" Americans and yes, much of the Democratic Party are racists and it isn't divided by race, the party is made up of many splinter groups and supporters often support a "Democratic" person for election not because they "like him/her" but think they will support their individual agenda whether it be related to a union, the environment, jobs, health care or whatever. To consider that there are simply ignorant people that vote one way and smart people that vote another way or bigots and diversity loving voting likewise is ignorant on itself.

All candidates claim to support "all" Americans and a couple of them even wink and blink that they will support illegal immigrants (that just my vote in the election). Inclusiveness is the key to winning and Rev. Wright is the one who has provided the "wink and blink" to the majority of Americans that Obama just may see things "his way" which is exclusionary, and for that reason he is unelectable. A black man cannot be elected using the second line of your signature.

I considered it. I don't think it's racist. I think it's accurate.

Have you considered your mutterings about the far Left assassinating Obama sounds racist?



Well, Malcolm X is both dead and not running for president, so I'm not getting your point.

If Reverend Wright would have just kept quiet, this might have blown over. Instead, he's out enjoying the limelight and making some of the most divisive comments imaginable. In less than a week, Rev Wright has made the election about him and he shows no signs of slowing down. Hillary could not have asked for anything better.

To give republicans credit, Obama doesn't have much of a history to reference. So, attending a church led by a person with extreme views seems fair game. It's implausible to believe that in 20 years, Obama has not heard these views.

Given this, the rhetoric coming from Rev. Wright is pretty bad - most people could have an honest disagreement with those views.

But this disagreement has been answered by racism charges. You know, that really shocks me because nobody would have ever thought honest disagreements would bring charges of racism.

.



I never could spell sir – but if that allows you to agree with this nutcase then that’s fine.

Yes and some folks from the stereotype groups you insult will not vote for Obama and you imply that this has all to do with his color rather than his politics. Funny but if you remember correctly many of these folks – like southern bible thumping, gun toating, white men were solidly behind Colin Powell when its was rumored he would run – so imo you are dead wrong sir.

And I am sure if he loses to McCain you will be whining that “racism” was the reason.



I think what hurt him more is what he said, in combination with what his pastor said. Added together it shows him as perhaps too liberal for many moderate dems and the “Reagan Democrats” he will need to beat McCain.

And Wright’s latest gaff is to imply Obama really agrees with him but cannot say so because he is “running for President”. The man should just shut up and go away.

There are poor whites and poor blacks in America, many of the poor blacks are a result of slavery and many of the poor whites are the result of indentured servitude another form of slavery pointed out in the US Constitution. To put indentured servitude into context take a look at this link http://www.virtualjamestown.org/indentures...indentures.html My personal opinion on voting rights is that the right to vote should be based on property ownership as it was when the nation was founded(or in the case of modern times a completed tax return where you can show you paid actual tax exceeding SS/Medicare) rather than allow the ignorant masses to vote for the candidate that will offer the most breadcrumbs. Our nation offers life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not the guarantee of happiness and therefore I have very little concern for people that you describe in your white trash definition nor do I have concern for former slaves that have not taken the very great present of life, liberty and the ability to attain happiness as a special gift and go for the gold. I do not see America as a Marxist state as many from the left see it with promises to all citizens outside of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you are white or black and have not taken advantage of your life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness and succeed then run off to your moma, papa church or community and beg for compassion because I have none for you. People are either assets or debits and all that attempt to progress are assets and those who fail to attempt progress are debits. Much of the white and black race in America are debits and should not have the right to vote for gifts from politicians, gifts made in offering of money taken from assets.

I challenge you to find one racist position I have taken on Obama and suggestions of his possible demise. I have always said it would most likely occur at the hands of the left and the motive being political power and not race. Yes, I have stated the political reasoning would be to retain the Afro American vote block but that isn't racist unless it is racist for almost all blacks to vote Democratic now.

OK I guess I wasn't clear on Malcom X with the knife comment, my point was that if the mainstream white working class doubts Obama's connection to Rev. Wright then they will think Obama sees the cure for what is broken as Malcom X and Rev. Wright sees it. Both seem to see themselves as victims with the knife pulled part of the way out and need a government surrogate to pull it the rest of the way out so they (the Afro American race) may be equal and then be able to pursue happiness. The mainstream view of Afro American - white viewpoint on race from my vantage point do not see Afro Americans with a knife partially inserted in their backs but equal and if they even think Obama sees the Afro American community with a handicap they will not consider him for president. I think a large number of whites think Obama secretly agrees with Rev. Wright's view based on his falling popularity.

Wow. Where to start? So much liberal angst in one thread!

McCain was going to leave the Wright matter alone and said as much, but alas, on Sunday night with Chris Wallace, Obama himself made it quite clear his relationship to Wright WAS a legitimate political issue: "I think that people were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he had made in the past. The fact he's my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue. So I understand that." See Fox News transcript. So, on Monday, McCain felt free to speak on the issue. Obama really blew it here....

Obama should have sunk the pirate ship Wright months ago, but since he didn't, Wright, apparently angered by Obama's denials of some of his more pernicious comments, has seen this as his opporunity to become a national "playa", like Rev Al and Jesse, and become a big-time, wealthy demogogue. I loved it when Wright said over the weekend that if Obama were elected, Wright would be there to bust Obama's chops to change U.S. policies--so much for Wright's being just a spiritual advisor. Elect Obama and you WILL get Rev. Wright as a policy wonk....priceless!

Pirate ship Wright has all but sunk the good ship Obama. The only good thing I can see is that this mess is happening now, not in October. Of course, I think it is too late to save the good ship Obama from cracking up on the reef. The Democrats are great at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

As for NT's comments about white trash and religious zealots not voting for Obama anyway, I am sure he is correct. NT loves to spew the unholy epithets rather than use more polite language, but that's just NT. Of course, now Obama has fixed it so only a handful of young, white, collegiate idealists and 90% of blacks will vote for him. If only Wright could have been sent to the African bush, far away from any media, for a revivial of about, oh, 12 months....

So, I guess it will be Hillary v McCain in the fall; unless, of course, if the Dem super delegates let Obama win, in which case, absent a revelation that McCain has been sleeping with Rev Wright's wife, it should be McCain trouncing Obama in the fall, even with Obama's cubic dollars.

Oh, and isn't it ironic that the rich old Republicans are losing the fundraising battle to the poor, populist Democrats? Well, that's another thread, I guess....

It's okay NT. If polls mean anything a majority of Jews probably want Obama to win abroad and at home.

McCain would probably work hard for Hamas. Just like Bush has for AQ.


Priceless indeed. Unfortunately your side of the isle paved the way spiritual intervention in U.S. policy. Leftist religious leaders may feel entitled to affect policy now. Thaaaaanks a bunch, Jesus trailblazers.

Just out from Mr. Obama, aka "I'm getting desperate now":

"HICKORY, N.C. - Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday.

Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright's comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church.

Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Wright's incendiary comments have dogged Obama's presidential campaign."

From Yahoo.com




Great stuff, Lesly. I always enjoy your posts.

I have no problem with elected officials meeting with pastors, etc. The issue here is that Rev. Wright WILL be meeting with Barack, and most U.S voters are tending to think Wright is a dangerous nutcase. So, we are not discussing elected officials meeting with pastors or spiritual leaders generally, which has been done since our first president took office; no, we are talking about THIS possible future president meeting with THIS pastor over policy matters.

Bump, bump I think Obama's bus just ran over something, just watched the press conference and following questions by reporters. Wow! I think this isn't quite over but just beginning. It will be he said she said now because the road kill is still alive and probably fire back ending Obama's credibility. Maybe there will be marches condemning Obama for throwing Rev. Wright under the bus. This race is becoming quite interesting.

It sounds like you may have a problem with pastors meeting with the president, depending on their ideology. If that's the case, just say so.

Frankly, a spiritual title doesn't give pastors a direct line to the president, whether or not they make scapegoats of homosexuals. That's the problem here. Don't you think the likes of Hagee, Robertson, etc. are dangerous nutcases? Don't you think they're in the same league as Wright? I think they're worse (for now) because we're accustomed to right-wing "spiritual leaders" bloviating about this or that social disease and foreign policy commitment.

Wright may take advantage of his relationship with Obama and sink his hooks. I hope, if Obama is elected, the promotion will nurse a condescending attitude towards Wright... the same attitude he allegedly has towards the working white middle-class. With McCain I know the religious right will expect to be catered to and few Republicans if any will raise a stink about it.

No Repub pres or pres nominee has gone to a church pastored by Hagee or Robertson. Wright's relationship to Barack is much, much closer and presumably more personally influential than any analogous relationship I can think of with regard to any Repub pres nominee or president .

I always appreciate your responses, NT, the research, the reasoning, and the writing. Reverend Wright gave a similar answer in the press conference yesterday, concluding that the government was "capable of anything." I thought about starting a new thread on that, to avoid taking this one too far off topic.

But for now I'm happy to say I agree with Barack Obama, who just addressed the issue as follows: ".But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.."

Obama will get no more criticism from me on this issue.

Spelling is the least of your problems, Ted.

The real problem is that you give us 10 to 20 hastily thrown together posts a day on almost all the hot topics.

It would be nice if you gave us more quality and less quantity.

Oh, and you could at least take time to edit your posts for spelling mistakes.

Your box score usually reads: no runs, no hits and countless errors.

BTW: Now that Obama has addressed specific issues, I suspect there will be those leeches out there who still want a unit of blood from him.

Kudos to Jobius for this statement:

Thanks for you opinion. I feel much the same for your one liners.



We need no blood. He has told us clearly where he is coming from with words from his mouth and his long term close associations. He may not have agreed with all Mr. Wright said but clearly the man knows his positions and was happy to listen to it for 20 years.

He has been hurt badly by the Reverend and until the idiot shuts up it will continue. Clearly this racist cares little about Obama or he would do just that.

I'm accused by some, including BA, of being overly verbose. Part of being a teacher is over explaining.

Unless you want to you want to take a line out of a longer post and call that a one liner, as scubatim once did, you are, as Delbert McClinton put it, "standing on shaky ground."

Oh, and BTW, I don't do fly by posts.

Getting back to the subject, Ted, the fallout will continue simply because people like you want it to. There is absolutely nothing - nada - Obama could do to please you.

You are correct BoF. I knew enough about his politics long ago to know I would not ever vote for him. The same is true for you and McCain – he will not get your vote.

But a large number of moderates not committed to McCain or Obama will make the difference in this election imo. And to them the associations and particularly the comments of Obama – like his gaff in SF are important. We have heard from them right on this site – and Obama has not satisfied them yet.

So this issue will not go away – nor should it – even though “people like you” desperately want it too.

You are also correct Ted. I have said that McCain would be a vast improvement over Bush. I would not be as uncomfortable with him in office as I am with the current regime.

I think four years of Obama would be absolute hell for you and that is why you are milking and will continue the Wight issue for all it's worth - even while there are more important issues to discuss. As in 2004 with the Swift Boat Veterans, the means seem to justify the ends for some Republicans.

Why not? There was no new news yesterday coming from Rev. Wright, the excuse prior was that he was taken out of context in a larger presentation but Senator Obama had ample time and staff to review the lengthy CD's to determine the context.

Nothing changed and the thing that angered Obama the most was Rev. Wright pointing out that Obama was a politician and said what he said because he is a politician. Those are fighting words, like calling him a lawyer with his mouth open implying he's a liar. More importantly this is Obama in desperation mode trying to repair impact he has learned from polls.

I would guess his fellow Senator Kennedy had a few words for him about Rev. Wright's mocking JFK? Obama owns Rev. Wright and as soon as Rev. Wright can put a microphone in his hand with a camera Rev. Wright will own Obama.

Hillary will have to pull out that record of White House window drapes and go shopping as she wonders onto Fox News to spread the smiles with Bill Oreilly tomorrow evening. Too funny! Maybe the black women will vote for her? If not I guess all the Afro American voters can vote for Cynthia McKinney that disagree with Obama's appraisal of Rev. Wright because I bet they agree 100% with each other.

You're probably right about what prompted Obama's latest denouncement of Wright. But I never thought that Obama shared Wright's views. I just wanted to see him address the specifics, rather than just "those statements that were controversial." The AIDS conspiracy bugged me in particular, because I've read that it's widely believed in the black community. He called it "ridiculous" today, which is all I was looking for.

I'm sure I'll have criticisms of him on other matters, if that makes you feel better.

Is the JW fallout continuing?


Obama came out today and blasted the man he said he could never repudiate. And about time.

Few (including me) believe that he agrees with most of what this nutcase said but the question remains – what does Obama believe and where does he really stand.

IMHO his remarks in SF told us a lot and he will have a lot of time to explain them over the next few months because what you say does not “go away”.


And we learned today that the woman, Reynolds, who set up the Wright talk at the Press Club is actually a Hillary supporter! The plot thickens………..



Is the JW fallout continuing?


Obama came out today and blasted the man he said he could never repudiate. And about time.

Few (including me) believe that he agrees with most of what this nutcase said but the question remains – what does Obama believe and where does he really stand.

IMHO his remarks in SF told us a lot and he will have a lot of time to explain them over the next few months because what you say does not “go away”.


And we learned today that the woman, Reynolds, who set up the Wright talk at the Press Club is actually a Hillary supporter! The plot thickens………..

Stand on what?

Here's a link to Obama's position on key issues.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/

Correction: Obama didn't throw Rev. Wright under the bus - he pushed him in front of a freakin' bullet train.

The candidate is not just "saddened", he's "angered" and "outraged" over the "spectacle" of Wright's "performance" over the past few days, he suddenly believes with all his soul that Wright is "divisive and destructive," that he gives "comfort those that prey on hate," and that there are now "no excuses" for the all the things Wright's been saying - and Obama's been hearing - for years.


I have not criticized Sen. Obama for his "association" with Rev. Wright, though I have been pointing out for weeks that the GOP would be using this "association" (and several others) non-stop once the national campaign gets under way (as it turns out, they haven't even waited that long). To me, the "association" with Rev. Wright was one of the few things that gave Obama a shred of credibility and I was somewhat disappointed that he felt he had to distance himself from him. Now that he has run him through a meat grinder and had him for lunch, this is where my criticism of Obama on this issue starts (though I will admit that I'm probably atypical in thinking that Wright has a firmer grasp on the status of blacks in American society than Barack Obama does).

It's interesting, Jobius, that you reiterate Obama's litany of egregious statements made by the Rev. Wright - AIDS, Farrakhan, American "terrorism", etc. Not one of those items has come to light since Obama made The Greatest Speech Ever Delivered (March 18, 2008 - a date that will live in footnotes, maybe) and most of them have been out there for years. Obama is now eviscerating Wright because he "amplified" some of the comments that he has probably been making continuously for the past twenty years or so? Give me a break.

Obama is slicing and dicing his mentor now because Rev. Wright has added one item to his canon: "Barack Obama is a politician" who "says what he has to say as a politician" and "does what politicians do". Or, as Sen. Obama paraphrased him, Wright suggested that the senator's "values and beliefs" - the lifetime that he has selflessly devoted to delivering speeches - are nothing more than "political posturing". Now that is an unpardonable sin.

I wonder if those few who recognize the truths in some of Rev. Wright's other pronouncements will recognize the truth in that one. It looks as though Obama took it seriously enough to shove his spiritual father onto the tracks. I knew the man was a shameless egotist, but I thought he might have had a modicum of character. Guess not.



Regarding McCain and his "associations" with Hagee, Parsley, et al., those are dangerous relationships and they do warrant closer examination. In the "distraction" stakes, the Democratic Party should be making as much hay from them as possible - and I expect they will. But one of the problems there is that Hagee and Co. speak for one of the GOP's core constituencies - and I doubt that the "associations" are close enough to scare off many who haven't already been scared off of McCain on other grounds.

But I think Rev. Wright - especially since he has had a close, long-term relationship with Obama and was an official member of his campaign - could have a serious impact on a number of moderates - and certainly on "Reagan Democrats". He's definitely not winning the hearts and minds of the "lunch-pail types" that he has to secure in order to have any chance of winning the general election.

What I think we have here is a window into one of the Obama campaign's strategies - and one that is coming back to bite the senator on the high yellow derrière. At the start of the campaign, it was clear that Sen. Clinton still had "the black vote" sewn up - and Obama knew that would need to be one of his bases of support. I think his campaign used religious leaders like Wright - and numerous others on his "African American Religious Leadership Committee" - to have one of those famous "separate conversations" with the black community in order to trash the Clintons and alienate black voters from Sen. Clinton. Rev. Wright, for example, delivered this sermon last December (well before Bill Clinton became a racist ):


"I am sick of negroes who just do not get it." Hmmn... where have we heard something similar? From Michelle Obama, perhaps?
That was last November. It looks as though Rev. Wright was not only on message the following month, but also acting as a designated wake-up call.

Once the Clintons were successfully tarred as being "racially insensitive" (to say the least), the Rev. Wrights were more expendable. It appears (to me) that Barack Obama used Jeremiah Wright - and Jeremiah Wright knows it. As we have seen, he is none too pleased. Nor should he be. It turns out that Barack Obama may be just as bad as career politicians like the Clintons when it comes to stuff like loyalty - if not far worse.

I also have a feeling that this whole thing could move from being yet another "distraction" to something more central regarding the candidate. Making Wright an official member of his campaign (and using him to gain credibility as a good, church-going Christian) certainly tells us something about Obama's famous "judgment". But the Rev. Wright fallout has clearly become a crisis in the Obama campaign - and the senator's handling of the whole thing must tell us something about how Obama reacts to a crisis. If one looks back over the history of the Wright affair, it is obvious that his reactions have not effectively dealt with the problem and may, indeed, have exacerbated it. To me, this does not bode well.

I hardly think we've heard the last of Jeremiah Wright...

Stand on the people of this country – obviously we have learned that he feels some folks are bitter and “cling” to their guns and Religion – as if these ideas are new or need “bitterness” to justify them.

He parroted what we would expect to hear from the SF elitist left in their distain for many working class people in PA and elsewhere. And Mr. Obama will pay dearly for the remarks.

So, are you saying that intangibles like this are more important than the war, the economy, lack of health care for some people, the environment, etc.? Is this really the issue or just what the right wants to run on?

It sounds like the 2008 version of the Swift Boat Veterans for "Twisted" Truth than anything substantive.

Not at all. I prefer McCain’s positions on these issues rather than the big government entitlement mentality that makes up Obama’s positions. He is a tax and spend liberal and that may be what you prefer but not me and lots of Americans.



http://www.rossputin.com/blog/media/allard..._spendorama.pdf

Great, then why not have the election on this rather than the bull fecal matter we've been talking about on the Wight threads or some of the nonsense the Swifties harped on in 2004?

Because some people who vote to put a man in the WH want to know all about him and his pastor for 20 years, other associates, and what he says – esp. when he says it when he thinks its not leaving the room – tell us a lot about the mans character.

Obviously if McCain had a pastor who was a close friend and said what Wright said it would be your hottest topic and page one in rags like the NYT.

Actually, the only reason Farrakhan and American "terrorism" were in there is because I was quoting Obama, and he mentioned them in the same sentence with the AIDS thing. But I won't argue with your political analysis, which I think has some merit. If Obama had distanced himself from Wright earlier, he might not have made such large gains in the black vote.

But (and you said as much yourself), nobody's going to be elected president on a platform of opposing "Amerikan imperialism." To me, that's a good thing, but your mileage may vary.

Oh, there are some nutcase pastors and preachers in the religious right who have gotten face time with presidents. Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen now since there appears to be a rift between the two. Wright is now calling Farrakhan a great leader - someone Obama has denounced. So, one bit of fallout is the falling out Obama and Wright are having now.

Senator Barack Obama is:
a - a man smart enough to ace his way through exclusive prep schools, ivy-league universities, and the tough-as-nails Chicago political scene.
b - a man stupid enough to sit in church for 20 years and not notice that his pastor flew to Libya with Louis Farrakhan, hated america, and viewed every situation through a prism of white oppression. Oh, and the entire church operated on the "black nationalist" value system, which explicitly notes rejection of middle-class status as being co-opted by the white power system.

If you buy a and b above, I got some lakefront land to sell ya.

The fallout continues because it shows either a) bad judgement or b) Obama is a liar. Simple as that.

I just wanted come on here, and call Jeremiah Wright what he is: a Jackal. I'd use stronger language if the filter let me.

For him to say an attack on him is an attack on the black church is the most disgusting comment I've heard to date, from any campaign or campaign surrogate, or anybody. What. A. Selfish. Moronic. Thing. To say.

Yeah, it's an attack on the black church in that he has now been elevated to defender of and represenative of all that the media has determined is wrong with the black church: a role he relishes with unique abandon.

What enraged me most about his appearance at the national press club is how he pandered to that tiny little audience in front of him, the fans and supporters who slipped into the room to egg him on, while the rest of the lillibread crowd meekly ate their hors d'oeuvres, and the national audience looked on in horror. I mean what a grand example of small-minded, petty politics. How he turned that journalist into an unwilling character foil, her the stumbling voice of the square, white establishment, himself the nimble wordsmith turning her words back around? Who cares? What a destructive maneuver.

Earlier I said that this would probably blow over. Now I'm not sure it ever will. With health care, Iraq, the environment and so many other issues on the table, Rev. Wright decided it was more important for him to defend his irrelevant reputation with all the obnoxious antics of a wounded school kid, rather than offer constructive words to bury the subject and get the country talking about things that surely must matter to him, as the shepherd of an enormous flock.

But apparently, the most important person in the world to Jeremiah Wright is Jeremiah Wright.

Another egocentric pastor, more concerned about the sheen of his own wool than the state of his flock. Call that an attack on the church, period, if you like. Jeremiah Wright isn't so different from a century's worth of pastors who have led this country down the political crap-tube so as to preserve and enhance their transient reputation. He deserves a plaque on the wall alongside every fire-branding pastor who helped put George Bush in the White House, because, effectively, that's what Jeremiah Wright is accomplishing. And he's making "the black church" look pretty darn bad in the process.

Come January, he'll be able to dry clean his sparkling sequined outfits secure in the knowledge that his reputation has been defended, kind of. At the expense of democrats, liberals, and black christians everywhere.

As far as Barack, look, I judge the guy on his words, his actions, etc. He may not have a voting record as long as John McCain -- but he has more elected office experience than Hillary Clinton, and nothing in his voting record or his 2.5 books suggest he holds anything near the kind of views that Jeremiah Wright does. We're not talking about Cynthia McKinney here, we're talking about a credible, ideologically center-left candidate for the presidency. So what I question isn't his values or his judgement. What I question is his political future.

I saw a longer clip of what this Reverend Jeremiah Wright had to say at the Press Club. While I have agreed in principle with some of what he has had to say, I cannot agree with what he said about Louis Farrakhan. I know that too many whites died from AIDS for it to have been a plot of the U.S. government to afflict and eliminate black males. (If anyone had a reason to think that it was a government plot, I think it would be gay men.) I do believe that the President and his administration did allow the events of 9/11/2001 to happen, probably more from negligence than anything else, and then their efforts to cover up said negligence made it look like complicity. I also think that the U.S. has backed dictators and maintained many spurious associations overseas in an effort to contain and destroy Communism, and as a result we have reaped the likes of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists.

However, it was clear that Jeremiah Wright was acting out of defiance to suggestions that he quiet down so as not to ruin Barack Obama's chances, and he went too far. He ended up looking like a buffoon, and he discredited himself, not the so-called Black Church in America.

Barack Obama had to disassociate himself from Wright if he wants the Democratic nomination and the Presidency. Only he and Michelle know how painful this was for him to do, or whether it was painful at all.

In any case, this has damaged Obama's campaign and the Republicans will be all too happy to exploit it in the next few months.

I agree with you on this. People are projecting every negative thing they can onto Wright, calling him racist, a "playa", a race pimp, etc. But based on what I've heard him say, and based on what he's done for his community, I just don't see it. I must not have seen the same press club speech that everyone else saw. In the one I saw, his comments were much more rounded out, much less controversial than the sound bites that started this whole mess in the first place. I admit that I am taking a hard look and re-evaluating my opinion of Obama based on the way he has thrown Wright under the bus and defaulted to the Fox News interpretation of Wright's comments. He comes off as even more of a politician. I don't want a president who is going to tiptoe around criticism of governmental policy, who refuses to acknowledge our own fallibility. Our government has promoted and supported policies that have sacrificed the stability and viability of other countries around the world. If someone is unwilling to admit that, then how can they hope to change it?

20 years is a long time. I refuse to believe that that's the first time he's heard Wright criticize the government's policies like that. He's being a politician (euphemism for "he's lying through his teeth").

Honestly, do these comments sound incendiary and outrageous? These are taken from the transcript on fox news' website

I watched the speech on You Tube and I can't see what the fuss is about. Most of it sounds like the usual religious clap trap political priests always talk about, 'God wants..., Gods desire is...'. Its amazing how God always seems to require old men to tell us what he wants.

A lot of what Wright says is just back clapping him self and his congregation though. Hardly controversial in a country as profoundly religious as the USA.

There are some political points raised, mostly racial and mostly biased, but they fit so seamlessly into the religious diatribe as to remain void of any lasting impression. Wright, once he gets into full cleric mode (much wagging of hands) tries to make out his detractors are wont to avoid military sacrifice, and yet most of the people I've seen criticising him have been from a military back ground. Its small points like that, adding up to make a bigger and bigger snowball as Wright gains momentum that makes him seem ever more superfluous (to me at any rate. I don't doubt his impact on Americans given the attentions he's been getting).

Obviously he's saying something the crowd likes because they cheer him on, but I wasn't able to identify either why he was so popular with his supporters or unpopular with his detractors. He sounds just like any other political priest to me. Not some one I'd ever listen to for advice on any subject. There's far too much 'me' in his religion.

I noted the continual use of the buzz word 'reconciliation', which I is interesting given its conotations with South Africa (which Wright also made mention of) where the political application of 'reconciliation' led both to the oppression of white South Africans, and to a wave of racism by South Africans against their black Nigerian neighbours. Like 'multiculture', I count the word 'reconciliation' to being a political tool designed to ellicit a specific response, and I am now naturally wary of any one who relies on such a buzz word in a political speech. All in all, this speech and its subsequent questions and answers only served to strengthen my opinion that Wright has nothing substantial to offer. His message is an emotional tactic designed to capitalise on an indignant sense of victimhood for his own personal and religious agenda.

Yet, the liberal and some independants continue to buy Senator Obama's "official position" and allow their emotions to dismiss facts you state above. I think Undercover Brother's cover has been blown for the general election unless he uses some kind of kryptonite and eats a lot of sandwiches with loads of mayonnaise.

Oh, let's stick to the issues, my position is clear, I slept through church and woke only long enough to write a book that's on the best sellers list. Chomp, wipe, chomp, wipe, darn that mayonnaise is disgusting but if you truly have hope you can eat it all up.

Governor Richardson must be very nervous about now along with all of the uncommitted super delegates. Bill and Hill are taking notes on SD's and it isn't going to be pretty when she moves into the White House.

Anyone who still thinks Senator Obama has a chance in the general election are breathing, eating, sleeping and dreaming based on emotions and if the SD's are stupid enough to follow their emotions and support Obama they'll have different emotions in the general election cycle. Payback is going to be something to see, I can see Bill's crocked finger in Richardson's face already.

How dare someone label Senator Obama a politician when he is an agent of hope!

And looking at the matchup stats last night it seems that Obama could beat McCain by only 2 percentage points – which is statistically insignificant – whereas Hillary would beat him by 8 points. It was the other way round just three weeks ago.

I think Wright has hurt Obama and will continue to do so – but the comment about “cling” to guns and religion will ultimately hurt more since he cannot claim to have not said, slept through, heard or been a part of that statement. And contrary to liberal myths there are lots of Religious gun owners who are Democrats and– most of them conservative or moderate Dems and independents who will decide the next election.

You bet he did, and he had every right to do so. Obama stood up there in Philadelphia and defended the man, tried to add context to some of his rantings (most of which I have some measure of agreement with), and then Rev. Wright kicks him in the groin by questioning his sincerity? I'd be done with him too. And so would you Wertz, if you were in the same position.

Wright even told Obama he would take heat over his relationship. Obama said, "that's cool, I got your back". When the heat came, he remained stalwart, showing a level of class I fail to see from most politicians. Initially it would have been politically expedient to divorce himself from Wright and just end the chapter there, but he didn't. But when I defend you and you dare question my sincerity, sorry, "fool me twice, shame on me".

Or did you expect Obama just to stand there and take it when the person he defended questions his integrity?

Struck a nerve, did I?





Ooooo....nice try, quick, but let's not forget McCain actively courted Hagee's support. Hagee didn't come looking for him. Wright may have been Obama's pastor, but Obama didn't stand up with him thanking him for his endorsement.

Assuming McCain knows how to turn on a computer and Google the name "John Hagee", in a matter of seconds he could have found out what everyone else knows and NOBODY---not Ted, not Carlitoswhey, not Aquilla, and not even Zack or quick--have attempted to defend or justify. The unpleasant fact that Hagee is a rabid anti-Catholic and anti-gay bigot. There is no disputing that in comparison to if Wright hates America or not.

Instead we get feeble retorts, "Well, no Repub pres or pres nominee has gone to a church pastored by Hagee or (Pat) Robertson." That is a distinction without a difference. For decades now the Republican Party has been a wholly owned subsidary of the evangelical far-right. The Hagees and Robertson and Falwells and their ilk have made and broken Republican candidates and the John McCain of 2000 who denounced these fruit cakes is now the guy getting in bed with them without a condom or lubricant.

But as Lesly pointed out, Reverend Wright gives the righties a chance to scream and point, "Oh my goodness, that man is so extreme!" Even though no one has demonstrated the causal relationship between Wright's preaching and Obama's political philosophy that hasn't stopped the "guilt-by-association" linkage.




There's what the politically astute, news-oriented and relatively informed "elitists" of (yeah, I'm going there) think. There's what the vast majority of Americans who aren't paying much attention to the campaign and have only a cursory knowledge of Reverend Wright (and none at all of John Hagee) think when they bother to. Then, there's the professional politicians and others who make their daily bread not talking about politics but crafting the agenda and making decisions upon their perception of the situation.

Guess who, the Republicans are oiling up the machinery for? Hint: the initials are not H.R.C.

Hillary Clinton’s decisive Pennsylvania primary win last week may have reinvigorated her campaign, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the Republican party.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has purchased &