Its seems that the Controversial Rev. Wright was brought to the National Press Club by a Clinton supporter.

“ There was little doubt left in today's remarks by Obama, who recently said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community. He pretty much disowned Wright today. Obama described himself as "outraged" and "saddened" by "the spectacle of what we saw yesterday."
But now, it turns out, we should have been paying a little less attention to Wright's speech and the histrionics of his ensuing news conference and taken a peek at....
who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event.

It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.
But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.

Their supporter, Reynolds, helps arrange a speech by the outspoken and egocentric Wright which receives blanket national coverage to the disadvantage of Clinton's opponent. As Louis writes: "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted."
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington...rightsetup.html


Questions for the debate:

1. Did Reynolds organize this event with the hope of hurting Obama and helping Hillary?
2. Is this more “dirty politics” from the Clinton camp or just part of the food fight?
3. Do you think Hillary or her staff knew about this or helped plan it?
4. Will this ultimately help or hurt Hillary? Obama?

Is whether or not Reverend Wright got suckered by a stealth Clintonista really more important than the fact more than 40 million Americans have no healthcare, violence in increasing again in Iraq where thousands of American troops have been stuck for over five years and in a few weeks/days/hours we will all be paying $4 for a gallon of gas?

I'm sure this topic is very important to you Ted. I'm just wondering if it's as important to most Americans who are non- elitists?

Side step, NT? Hope you don't trip! You don't have to post to threads that you think are not worthwhile, you know.

As for the topic of the thread, a year ago, I probably would have thought it could be coincidental, but as we have all seen the past six months or so, the likelihood of the Clinton machine having some hand in the spectacle is greater than not.

Oh, no, no, no, scubatim! Don't get it twisted.

I never said Ted's thread isn't worthwhile. I am sure the thread is worthwhile to him and obviously to you. I leave it to the Moderators to make the decision as to what is and what isn't worthwhile.

What I said was if you're a non- elitist like the vast majority of our fellow Americans, is this topic more important than health insurance, the war in Iraq and $4 a gallon gas?

Just idly speculating here, but I would guess the answer is "No." Maybe even a "hell, no." Or "hell to the naw" if you want to be ghetto fabulous.

But I am a elitist and I post in threads all the time that are not worthwhile. I like to think if enough people try really hard they can make a dumb thread look kind of smart.

And they have since the thread is here. Feel FREE to not respond to threads you consider not worthy of being posted.

But for me this is an issue and I am strongly with Obama on this “hit job”. IMHO this was a set up to allow Wright to make the very comments he did. In fact I would not put it past a Clinton supporter to have coached Wright. It seems odd to me that here for the first time Wright actually took on Obama with the implication that he was lying for the purpose of “getting elected”.

I would not at all put this past the Clintons – that are down and dirty fighters.

Why, thanks a whole heckua lot, Ted, but I Feel FREE to add a dash of color to these otherwise drab and dreary "Bash Obama and the Dems" threads.



Yet for some strange reason as a Obama supporter that gives me no comfort whatsoever.

So the relationship between Obama and Wright has no bearing on Obama the man, and in turn Obama the candidate for the most powerful position in the world is what you are saying? This is where many people in America apparently disagree. In my views, if Obama held a close, personal relationship with Rev. Wright for more than 20 years, it would logically be decided that Obama supported many of the views of his spiritual and personal adviser. If not, why keep the relationship for so many years? Given that viewpoint, Obama would then have the foundation of those views to build policy decisions on. This is where many people have a problem with the Obama/Wright relationship. If Obama has had this man as a personal and spiritual adviser, what evidence is there that Obama would not have some of the same views and not harm the already bleak future of our country? Before we can even discuss specific policy issues, we need to evaluate the candidates views at a foundational level. If the words of Rev. Wright are similar to the views of Senator Obama, then I don't see him as a viable candidate for the President of the United States. If their views differ so greatly, why did the relationship last more than 20 years?

You often end your posts with a question, scubatim. Before I answer yours, here's one of my own.

Got any friends or family, scubatim?

Does anyone you know hold some opinions you disagree with? If you are a Republican and your significant other a Democrat, would you kick her out of bed? If your best friend is a Green Bay Packers fan and you're down with the Chicago Bears, would you get rid of him and find another friend.

I don't see any reason to believe Barack Obama shares the same viewpoints as the Reverend Wright. Nothing Obama has said or written indicates he shares the same outlook of America as Wright does.

Now to answer your question, I would suppose despite the fact that their views differ on certain issues, what Obama and Wright have in common were far more binding than what separates them. Just like everyone else, it's not beyond belief to have friends who hold views you disagree with. Personally, I have friends who are gay and I'm not. I have friends who prefer Hillary Clinton or John McCain to Barack Obama. I even have friends who vote Republican. They're still my friends despite our differences.

Up until yesterday when Obama publically and totally broke from Reverend Wright, their relationship probably met the same criteria.

Doubtful. I often take advice from an old friend who is a dyed in the wool End of Times Jesus Freak. I don't share his views on much but we are great friends. I have friends who have some very disagreeable opinions to me but we are great friends. Some of them are even offensive to other people but I would never cut them off. friends are friends and people who have been true to you deserve the same in return. Loyalty still counts.


? Sometimes hearing the crazy stuff from people you know helps clear your own mind and allows you to see just how crazy some things are.
Its kind of like if you write something. Wait a few days and reread it and see if it is still the new york times bestseller list nominee it seemed to so clearly be when the inspiration came flooding through after only 20 minutes of sleep..

I'm telling you George, we'll be greeted by roses and screaming women. The fighting will be over and done in a few weeks time at the most. A cakewalk. Trust me


It is very easy to see taking some advice from a trusted source and ignoring that you do not agree with. Hopefully enough Americans are mentally and spiritually mature enough to also do the same?
Is this so difficult to comprehend? Are so many so easily swayed by the opinions of others? If some one expresses a point of view in your hearing are you in danger of being brainwashed?
How many make sure they only associate with carbon copies of themselves?

Weak.

Ok, comparing family and religious leader is so far out of bounds, I can't even see where you came from. Do you chose your family? You can chose whether or not you associate with that family, but do you chose your family? Pretty much that would be a no, right? Do you chose your religious leaders? Do you chose your personal advisers? Do you make decisions as to who you go to for guidance? If you disagree with those that you chose to seek the advice of, why would you continue seeking that advice, unless of course you believe in those views?

For the record, my wife is a democrat, and I love her more than anything in the world. But again, we are not talking about the difference between dem vs rep. We are discussing whether or not the man that supported a religious and personal adviser that holds America responsible for AIDS, terrorism and oppression is right for the White House. Nice try NT.


A couple of flaws with your position. If Obama really was to distance himself from Wright, why so far down the road and not from the beginning? Why all of a sudden now, and not 19 years ago? If he feels so strongly against the teachings of Rev. Wright, why is that only coming to light to him today? Second, you honestly believe what a politician tells you during an elections cycle at face value? I thought you were much more intelligent than that.

I will restate here that we aren't talking about someone saying that the left is wrong. We are talking about someone that holds the Federal Government responsible for AIDS, inciting terrorism upon it's own people etc. If it were as simple as a Republican preacher associating with a Democratic Senator, do you honestly think this level of controversy would ensue? No, it is about the preachers damnation of America, and the faithful following of someone that wants to run this country. Sugar coat it all you want, but there is validity to the issue.


Not talking about friendship or family here. We are talking about a man that has great influence on who could be our next president. I don't give a flying fart who your friends are, or who you seek advice from until you want to be in the most powerful position in the world. Seeking the guidence for 20 years from a man that damns America, then wanting to be President of the United States should put pause in the minds of all serious voters.

Well, well, well. The Hillary conspiracy didn't take long at all, Wertz.

Is this more "dirty politics" from the Clinton camp or just part of the food fight?
No.

Do you think Hillary or her staff knew about this or helped plan it?
No.

I feel like I'm posting at the National Enquirer just responding. Maybe the questions amuse Ted. Anyway here's my conspiracy theory: Obama and Wright coordinated this. If they didn't coordinate it, both were aware of what Wright would say in advance, and how Obama would react in advance. That's my uneducated guess. The reaction from both Obama supporters and detractors has been too perfect.

The performance wasn't good enough for some, of course. It'll never be good enough for people who can't believe anything other than Wright is a puppet master. For them, Obama can never distance himself enough in word or deed. But he probably doesn't need to worry about diehards, just diehards spreading their "genuine" concern to moderate and undecided voters. Now the latter group, I think they're coming around.

I can't help but think Obama and Wright are laughing about all this. People don't like second guessing themselves. They saw two men growl at each other on the teevee and the media amplified the "cat fight" so it must be real. Fortunately for Obama and Wright the media doesn't second guess themselves either and they wait until the dust settles to revisit what passes for political analysis.

I feel like I'm posting at the National Enquirer just responding. Maybe the questions amuse Ted.

How about my source lesly– LA Times – too conservative for you. And Wright and Obama did not coordinate anything. His comments at an airport after hearing the news on Wright were far different than they were later – no doubt the staff got to him and told him he had to distance himself from Wright. Which he did.

Nah, not really conservative, though God knows why they hired Jonah Goldberg. Hey do you think perhaps I could get a job there if I write a book comparing the Bush administration to Hitler's regime? Don't answer that.

Is that the same Barbara Reynolds who penned a paean to Wright in January and as late as March? By Jove! The Clinton conspiracy is more complicated than we first thought. This could only mean the Clinton camp had been planning Obama's downfall for months. Months I say. Why, she probably wrote his speech for him!

Lets see we have a man who when younger seems to have been actively trying to find just who he was in this world in a country where we are told we can be whomever if we try hard enough and are all created equal but was also instantly nothing more than a nigger to some whites regardless of who or what he was and not "Black enough" to some Blacks. Ends up in what is apparently considered "The Church" in Chicago. One with a fierce sense of pride in Blackness more in line Malcolm X than MLK.
but in the end what we get is the Obama of the the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention who while short on the details of the mechanics of how we can accomplish some things in his speeches, is very very good at vocalizing what is best about America and what we can do if we can dust ourselves off from our malaise and our spiteful "I oppose this because you Support this and no better reason" division and once more enter the arena with ambition and faith (oh yes I did go to both the Gipper and Teddy).




Still can't take it seriously. After all on the Daily Show Obama did declare he has no plans to enslave the whites of America in retaliation for the slavery of Blacks for so long in America.
What more can you ask of a candidate?

Next you'll ask me believe that because McCain sought out the support of Hagee and Parsley he is actually secretly planning to instigate the End Times by ratcheting up the conflicts in the ME and secretly hates Jews for killing Christ and Catholics are really the tool of Mmmm...Satan! I do miss the Church Lady sometimes.

Independence and critical thinking skills--can't have one without the other.

Go for it kid – a best seller for sure!


Hey when was the last time the DAILY COS agreed with me? (Never!) And the fact that Hillary was on O’Reilly tonight (planned ahead) imo is no accident either. I heard only snippets but she did slam Wright and indirectly Obama. IMO Hillary sees the Wright affair as her last chance to kill off Obama and she knows FOX is where she can get the most independent viewer coverage – after the Press Club plot. And she pulled it off beautifully.

Never count out the Clintons.

In other news a survey showed tonight that that 36% of Democrats say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of the Wright mess. I am sure Hillary and Bill are all smiles.

She may very well feel that way and no politician alive today would miss the opportunity to naysay her opponent. It doesn't mean Reynolds is Clinton's secret agent.


Never count on politicians.

You honestly think this is the only reason I don't support Obama? Maybe you should look further into the "Independence and critical thinking skills--can't have one without the other" statement you made. You reference his speeches. I find total lunacy when people believe everything they hear from a politician as true and genuine. Don't you think he makes these speeches only for one purpose? He knew he was going to be running for President this year when he got elected to the Senate. He knew he wanted to run for President when he went to college. Feel free to continue to follow your shepherds in politics. Independence and critical thinking skills tells me that staying with the status quo will only give the same results. I feel that I am talking to someone that will adamantly defend democrats no matter what the situation. It is people like this that is a waste to spend too much effort with. (By the way, I am not voting McCain) Go on and follow, not believe your side can do wrong, but if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be crying bloody hell about it. Again, I am not voting Republican this year, so feel free to throw anything back this direction, just know you will be off the mark!


Nothing too secret about Reynolds and Clinton.

Oh take a nice deep breathe Francis. I wont apologize for liking Obama and will choose who I vote for depending on the politician most likely to result in political gridlock. After all America is only safe when Congress is on vacation. I never believe anything politicians say.
Unfortunately in the real world I have to live with the zealots of the left and right trying endlessly to take away everything they can either for the State or in the name of some dusty Babylonian ghost.
At least with Obama and gridlock I get a tony robbins type who may just energize enough of my fellow Americans to do something once they get tired of the speeches and no results. Sadly that probably only means they just swing the other way and elect some mindless dittohead version of Obama. Obama will be neutered by Hilary as she gets even for not being POTUS and does her best to either block or slow every move he tries to make. Best of all she will be done as far as potential POTUS. win/win

If however Obama can break the chain of the clintons vs the hannitys he will have been an excellent choice.
Although the chance to hear the far right lunatic fringe of the rush/hannity wing of the GOP scream bloody murder when McCain goes right down the center politically and gets even with every "conservative" who tried to make him sit up and beg is also very attractive. I am curious to see what happens in the GOP if McCain wins election to POTUS without really needing the hard line conservatives. What happens to the 3 legged stool then? again win/win.

I would prefer people were more libertarian in life but the greed and ego of the right and left is almost psychotic. I didn't make the world I just have to survive it and people like you.



I see no difference in either "side" of the political coin. I have more respect for crack whores than the DNC or the GOP.

I would advise against trusting your feelings. They aren't very reliable.

For someone who has such a dim view of politicians you sure seem to be deathly afraid of them.
Just like Nixon/Carter/Reagan/Bush the Elder/Clinton/Bush the Younger never seemed to destroy America as their opponents alway shrilly claimed they would, neither will Obama hurt us either.

Always makes me wonder just how much faith my fellow Americans have in this country when they are always so sure we are ready to be destroyed any day now. Like a few politicians or a small group of sand sucking primitive religious zealot criminals could ever pull it off.

ridiculous and weak.

A few points to address:

So accepting your intelligently written post, why continue to vote for the status quo if you admit that gridlock is immenent? I am not saying vote for either of the other two candidates, but why vote for someone you feel will create more gridlock just as we have seen in my lifetime? Does that make America better?


People like me? Is that someone that questions your position? Is that someone that challenges your views? Define "I just have to survive it and people like you." I didn't know that this was about me, so please shed some light on that point of yours.


I would disagree, but thanks for assuming you know anything about me. Maybe I should restate my point. I feel that I am discussing this with someone that will defend Obama no matter what comes to light. I didn't know if you supported him or not, and I don't like to assume things, but since you shared, I will qualify what I was saying.


Again, you are assuming you know anything about me. Very dangerous to do towards anyone. If anyone doesn't fear the amount of power given to these "politicians" without question, that person is who I fear most. What makes these candidates the best choice in America for President of the United States? Because they have money? Because they are a Republican or a Democrat? Because they are lawyers? What is it that makes them the best in America to hold the most powerful seat on Earth? Of course I fear them. Not in the way you implied, but in the way that who takes this position has more power than most would think, and too much power if you ask me.


A few politicians? How about 500+ in Congress and everyone that is the Presidential Administration. It is good to see that you use such advanced analysis such as "small group of sand sucking primitive religious zealot criminals", that makes your argument so much less.

I have all the faith in the world in America, it is the people in Congress and in the White House that I don't have faith in. There is a big difference that is obvious.

Clearly McCain is not “far right” and never has been. If anyone can reach across the isle it is him – and history proves this. Obama on the other hand has far too many far left friends, advisors, Pastor etc. for me to believe he is not far left of center.

Unlike you I want the dam Congress and POTUS to get things done. They work for us and right now they are doing squat. The Dems control congress and on the energy front have babbled a lot and done nothing. If we are ever to have a prayer to be even a little less dependant on the ME we need some ACTION by this crew.

Same for health care. Same for trade. Holding up the Columbia Trade agreement is just as stupid as it gets.

You're doing the same thing as quick. Asking questions and answering them yourself. This is supposed to be a dialog, not a monologue.

Of course you don't choose your family. You're given your family. You choose your friends. Barack and Michelle Obama chose Jeremiah Wright as the man to marry them and baptize their children and introduce them to their religious faith. I feel fairly confident those are three things most would regard as positives.

The idea of choosing a personal or spiritual adviser is not simply because you want someone to agree with you. Any fool can find someone to echo their already held beliefs. A true personal or spiritual adviser is going to challenge your perceptions, introduce new concepts to you and encourage you to think and go beyond what you already know.

But that doesn't mean you surrender individual will and choice.

And I don't see any indication Barack Obama believes in every word and utterance of Jeremiah Wright.



It's nice that you're making a mixed marriage work, but you're still playing a gotcha game of guilt-by-association and the success of it depends on how you add it up.

Reverend Wright believes the government deliberately infected the Black community with AIDS and drugs.

+ Barack Obama was a member of Reverend Wright's flock for almost 20 years.

= Therefore Barack Obama also believes the government deliberately infected the Black community with AIDS and drugs.

You're right this isn't about Democrats and Republicans. It's about freedom of thought and choice vs. slavish devotion and belief in a religious figure. I give Obama credit enough to listen to Wright without necessarily accepting everything as gospel.

You don't.



Yes, and you thought correctly. I am intelligent, but I am not cynical to the point that I believe every time a politician opens his or her mouth a lie is going to come flying out. You're not voting for anyone this election, scubatim. You're voting against someone. I'm not. So, yeah, I do believe Barack Obama tells the truth more than he lies.

It's a hope thing. You wouldn't understand. Just as you don't understand that for someone like Obama who grew up without a strong Black male role model, the presence of a Jeremiah Wright in his life may have partially filled the void. You like so many others, have heard or seen a few edited remarks made by Wright and concluded, that's ALL he did was preach, "goddamn America."

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If you're so intelligent you should go beyond the 60-second soundbites and learn a little bit more about Wright.

If you bothered to read or listen to Obama's March speech about race and Rev. Wright, he says. I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

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

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



I'm not into sugarcoating issues, scubatim. But I feel fairly confident in saying that on any given Sunday in churches across America, a minister will step before the congregation and condemn America to eternal hell and damnation for its indulgence in drugs, alcohol, pre-marital sex, pornography, mindless self-indulgence, greed, envy, pride and abortion.

There will also be those holy men and women who suggest America is doomed due to the wars it wages, the poverty it permits to exist and the way it is despoiling the planet. I'll bet you Jeremiah Wright wasn't the first preacher to say, "Goddamn America." He's just the first one to show up on You Tube.



Not this serious voter. I don't give a flying fart who your friends are or who you seek advice from. I do give a flying fart if your friends or who you seek advice from have given you bad advice that has clouded your mind and colored your decisions.

I don't see any evidence Wright has influenced Obama to his way of thinking and you sure haven't proved it.

Guilt-by-association gotcha games are nothing but political tricks and traps and I'm not buying it. You obviously have.

But then you weren't going to be supporting Barack Obama anyway. Now you've got another reason not to.

I do. Why is Mr. West an Obama staff member. Do you really believe that if Obama is a centrist and will bring us together there would be a place for this mans views? He is the “Harvard” equivalent of Mr. Wright> Do you agree with West?

One association is one thing but Obama has too many from the far left for many people – and this will come up in the fall

I think I'm getting it now.

Rev. Wright likes to make off the wall, and even insulting statements. As Obama's longtime personal spiritual advisor (raise your hand if you describe your own longtime pastor/priest as a personal spiritual advisor) Obama is a proxy for his pastor's views by virtue of proximity and length of interaction.

We know Rev. Reynolds was both a Clinton supporter (at least at the Maryland primary) and a Rev. Wright supporter because she wrote a March 17 blog entry urging Obama not to distance himself from his old pastor. There wasn't a presumed conflict of interest with her loyalties until Wright's National Press Club speech, which everyone believes was terribly damaging to Obama's campaign. Because of Reynold's proximity to Wright it can only mean Reynolds and Wright are proxies for the Clinton campaign! Oh what tangled webs we weave.

I'm so clever.

Nah. I'm not that kind of cuckoo clever.

If Fox is to be believed Reynolds had nothing to do with the invitation. She did mention Wright two years ago for the dinner but he wasn't newsworthy then. It's more likely conservatives buying this conspiracy theory (a) already believe the Clinton Arkansas rampage killing conspiracies or (b) aren't content to watch liberal alliances within the party fracture.


Let's keep it going and drag Sylvia Smith into this. Can we do that? The Clintons' tendrils are long, after all.

Boy, this really must be Xmas in May for you Ted. You've been able to go postal about Wright, Noam Chomsky and Cornel West all in one week.

Seriously, though your Joe McCarthy Light act is really getting boring. Dr. West is a professor of theology and one of the leading intellectuals in not only Black America, but all of America.

But you see the Wikipedia description of West as a "non-Marxist socialist" and your ears prick up. SOCIALIST? MARXIST? Holy mother of God!

Do I agree with West? Well, let's look back at his Wiki entry: West later wrote that, in his youth, he admired "the sincere black militancy of Malcolm X, the defiant rage of the Black Panther Party...and the livid black theology of James Cone."

I'm not familiar with James Cone but I admired Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. So far, so good.

Some more about Dr. West from Wiki: West has branded the U.S. a "racist patriarchal" nation where "white supremacy" continues to define everyday life. 'White America,' he writes, "has been historically weak-willed in ensuring racial justice and has continued to resist fully accepting the humanity of blacks." This has resulted, he claims, in the creation of many "degraded and oppressed people [who are] hungry for identity, meaning, and self-worth." Professor West attributes most of the black community's problems to "existential angst derived from the lived experience of ontological wounds and emotional scars inflicted by white supremacist beliefs and images permeating U.S. society and culture

Yep. Makes sense to me.

Besides Barack Obama now, in the past West has supported Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Al Sharpton and Ralph Nader.

Gee, Ted, I can see why you don't like West very much and the more you don't, the more I do.

Ya everyone to the right of you is Joe M. Sure pal.

And if you agree with this trash:



Then you are further left than most Americans. And I assume here that you agree that Obama could very well share these views since he has the man on staff for the Campaign.

Enough said.





Ya NT you are cool and smart - and I don't believe you. And frankly I don't believe Obama buys it either.

As I predicted such a thread, however ironically, I suppose I should probably respond.

Did Reynolds organize this event with the hope of hurting Obama and helping Hillary?

How should I know? How should anyone know, apart from Reynolds? It's certainly possible. However, it seems that Reynolds knows Rev. Wright personally, that she first proposed him as a speaker two years ago, and that when Wright appeared on a panel for the Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference last year, Reynolds was listed as the contact. That was, of course, before Obama was a contender, before Reynolds endorsed Clinton, and before Wright became controversial. It would appear that Reynolds has been an advocate of Wright's for some time - and has been one of his few defenders during the recent controversy (hardly the position of the Clinton campaign).

Is this more "dirty politics" from the Clinton camp or just part of the food fight?

If it was intended to be "dirty politics" on the part of Reynolds, it was certainly a gamble. When Rev. Wright was again proposed as an NPC speaker in mid-March, it was before Obama disowned him the first time and no one knew how Wright himself might react. As Wright appears to be such a loose cannon, it is equally possible that, at that time, Wright could have responded more reasonably to the whole affair and been a boon to Obama's candidacy.

Do you think Hillary or her staff knew about this or helped plan it?

I seriously doubt it, but anything is possible. We've already established that Sen. Clinton is a Satanist, a murderous lesbian, a crypto-fundamentalist, and God knows what else, so perhaps she's the Wicked Witch of the Northeast, as well, and saw in her crystal ball six weeks ago how this story would develop and set one of her flying monkeys (no racial slur intended, since that apparently needs to be made clear these days) to arrange a place at the podium for Wright to coincide with his other high-profile appearances this week. That's a bit of a stretch, but Clinton opponents have become masterful contortionists of late.

Will this ultimately help or hurt Hillary? Obama?

It is hurting Obama, but it's not helping Clinton much either. That's the purpose of this thread, no? Hurting both the Democratic candidates?

What I find entertaining about this whole thing is the extent to which Democratic opponents keep trying to turn what is little more than a food fight into the filthiest, bloodiest, most underhanded political Armageddon in the history of the world - and that some people take them seriously. Have they never examined a single one of the GOP's campaign tactics over the past decade? By comparison, calling the Clinton-Obama contest a "food fight" does a disservice to food fights. This has been more like a slightly heated game of checkers.



If you've ever had a disparaging word for Hillary Clinton, Daily Kos would agree with you approximately 100% of the time over the past few months. Daily Kos has become little more than a divisive Obamaganda machine intent on damaging the Democratic Party. You should sign up - you'd fit right in.

In fact, I expect you and Daily Kos are both currently trying to figure out how Hillary Clinton organized Wright's appearance on Bill Moyers Journal and his address to the NAACP last week...

Actually what people are trying to figure out imo is where the candidates are really coming from. Few people with a brain believe that all they say (in public) sums them and their positions up. So they look at all the other things including this little “food fight” as you call it.

Yep. I am further to the Left than most Americans and you know what? I'm fine with that. At some point maybe the rest of the world will get in step with me. And the scary part of it is Ted, some folks think I'm too conservative. I even had a radio host call me a "Sambo" for not being far enough to the Left.

I take my cue from Dr. King who said, The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

That's my goal in life. To be a creative extremist. That's why conservatism doesn't appeal to me. Conservatives don't believe anything should be done for the first time. I can't figure out how anything changes or progress can be made by maintaining a status quo that has been proven not to work.



I agree with both of your sentences.

Obama is a politician. Maybe a different kind of politician, but a politician all the same and a pretty traditional one at that. Sure, most Republicans say a national health care program is socialized medicine, but even Richard Nixon messed around with such an idea. A phased withdrawal to get out of Iraq isn't a far-out position. I don't see Clinton or Obama advocating the immediate signing of the Kyoto Protocols or withdrawing troops from Germany, Japan and South Korea. They aren't proposing a "soak the rich" tax plan or any radical new social programs. They aren't promising to legalize gay marriage or increase the number of abortions performed.

Oh, I'm sure Dr. West would like to see some program instituted to redistribute the wealth of the nation from the bottom up instead of the top down, but do you really think Obama is going to try something as politically unrealistic as that? Are you worried he will only pick unqualified minorities for his Cabinet? Do you really think he's going to gut the military budget and neuter the armed forces to the point that America's enemies will be so emboldened as to attack?

I don't disagree that Reverend Wright and Dr. West are not solidly in the mainstream of political thought. However, not all the answers are found in the middle. Sometimes you have to look to the extremes--the creative extremes---of the Left and the Right for new solutions to old problems.

Obviously, the old answers to the old problems haven't worked.

I am fundamentally against a one size fits all government (DC) mandated health solution. All you have to do is look at the mess we call Medicare to see this would be a disaster – or check out “universal health care” in other countries – disaster. McCain would allow states (with some government funding) to come up with their own, locally managed, solutions – as we have here in MA. I favor that – local management is key.

The left of the Dem party favors big, stupid, forms oriented government healthcare programs – like Medicare.

And we know the “soak the rich” mentality of Ted Kennedy is not far from where Obama is. As if the “rich” could ever pay for the “plans” he has outlined. What happens is the middle class (where I am) gets the shaft again.

“The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.
Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.
Doesn't Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn't he understand that without capital, businesses can't expand their operations and hire more workers?
Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.
Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway, and Sweden? That's no way to run economic policy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ernment_vi.html


No Obama is not my choice – although I like the guy (who couldn’t) – if he was a middle of the road conservative Republican like McCain I would be out there working for him enthusiastically – unfortunately this is not the case.