Obama seeking to divorce himself from former pastor

i think Obama having to do this really hurts him

Is everybody happy NOW? What is the next outrageous double standard are the Clintons, media and the republicans going to come up with next?

There has been no mention of the Clinton's connection to some of the debacles that occurred when they were in the White House......travelgate........Lani Guinier.....need I go on? How about some of the people he pardoned....Arnold Paul Prosperi Florida attorney, tax fraud. managed Clinton's 1967 campaign for student-council president. Roger Clinton, Jr. Cocaine charges(half-brother of President Bill Clinton).Richard Wilson Riley Jr., Cocaine and marijuana charges, His father was Clinton's Education Secretary.Henry Cisneros (former HUD Secretary).William Arthur Borders Jr. (Conspiracy to corruptly solicit and accept money in return for influencing the official acts of a federal district court judge .............Where was Hillary when all of this was happening? We must focus on real issues and not allow ourselves to be bamboozled.

It is really sad that their disagreement had to be dragged through the 3-ring circus media. I think a great deal more understanding should be extended to both these men under these circumstances.

At the moment, Wright owns Obama.

Why do you think so? I believe that Obama has shown a lot of compassion for Wright. That elevates him to most people. It is very painful when you look to someone as a mentor, but they prove to have selfish motives. It seems to me that Obama's integrity showed through the thing clearly. What are your ideas about it?

Obama's long-term association with Wright that came to light after the good pastor's remarks surfaced forced him to make that vaunted Phillie speech. Only his fans were fooled. This was not part of Obama's campaign plan. Today's news conference was not part of the plan, either. I have to wonder what's in Wright's upcoming book.

I am still not sure WHY we should care about what Wright says anyways.

How about let's talk about Obama's voting record?????

And Clinton's voting record as well????

Why do we Viner's let the MSM (the Corporate run, right-wing ideologue media) make our decisions as to what WE should be talking about? When we do, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Dammit!

Because we have to deal with dittobots?

agree. not sure why we care what this guy says. who cares. he's one guy, and he's not even in the race!

Is NPR right-wing? Listen to it for awhile and you'll discover Wright is getting coverage there as well. Plenty.

You know, Obama's angry news conference may result from Wright naming him and drawing him back from what he hoped would go away. It won't. If Wright had merely rambled on, dancing, mocking others and insinuating the HIV whopper, perhaps Obama wouldn't have scheduled his off-message sidebar.

To me these recent events that we are discussing are way to perfect for Obama's needed result. For two extremely intelligent individuals, and their understanding of the medias ways of simplication, the outcome was inevitable. These actions also carry with them the ability for Wright's repentance, honorable exit,and restoration of sanity. What a web we weave when we practice to decieve..hey it's politics.

At the moment, Wright owns Obama.

I think that it's over, now. The media doesn't want it anymore.

Newsguru:

"Electability", and "distancing himself" are code words used by the corporate media in the language of divide and rule, class corruption, class appeasement, subordination of democratic forces through this ideological manipulation to accept the state terrorist policies of U.S. Empire. All who participate in this subordination, especially the corporate media, most of the political and ideological class are propagandists for the imperial policies of Amerika.....and those who agree with this "distancing" know fully well that once again the status quo is shifting the debate from social justice to a defense of its criminal policies.

Eric Albert,

While I appreciate the sincerity of your rhetoric it would be nice if it could reflect political reality now and again. Wright did something wrong, Obama reprimanded him for it. I am challenged to see how the corporatists enter into that equation, even as I am glad to see how they enter into many others.

MaryGJ and Headinthegame:

The corporate media has from day on manipulated, corrupted the whole political process, with its phony debates, servile moderators, supeficial issue, because bottom line the Corporate, class ideologies of both class parties, participate in this game of divide and rule, with its class standards, ye, double standards by pitting social forces against each other. Wright was spot on regarding his critique against the U.S. empire, and its criminal policies that allow him to leave the door open to any crime, so long as it is cloaked in secrecy.

Let me remind everyone, that Martin Luther King himself did a broadside against the criminal foreign policies of the U.S. class empire, with his infamous speech on Vietnam.
The corporate media conveniently pretends not to remember this history, as they and the bourgeois, corrupt Civil rights leaders themselves want to participate in the safe remembrences of race issues over class and imperial issues. That is classic corporate ideological manipulation, of history, of class history, imperial history, and Wright was only saying what most of the public, and most of the African Americans knew, that in fact Amerika is a terrorist state, imperial state, and no matter how many liberal class whores want to blame Wrigt to defend Obama' capitulation will change that.

I just saw Bob Herbert do a broadside against Wright to defend Obama and his cowardice.
Herbert who is usually good has himself capitulated to the politics of Class rule, and failed to remind his readers that Obama has failed dramatically on serious issues of consequence, where Wright has called him on it. First why has Obama not come out for impeachment against the many crimes of the criminal class Empire of the U.S. and the latest revelations that the whole executive participated in the planning of torture, with Bush even admitting it. Obama what does it take for your to do your constitutional job and uphold the Bill of Rights???? Bob Herbert why are you not taking on Obama on this fundamental failure?

Then there was the latest revelation that Israel carried out illegal aggression against Syria with Amerikan class Empire and its fascist policies covering up for them, having violated article 51 of the U.N. charter, by definition a war crime. Why has Obama not condemned this illegal act? If he will not condemn Israel, Zionism, Amerikan Empire on this illegal aggression, do you really think he will not capitulate, appease, like the whoring corporate media, to another aggression against Iran?.....Welll Herbert??? Well Obama???

These are the kind of fundamental failures that the corporate sleazeball media thugs, ideological thugs refuse to address, instead pretending we are not an imperial class Empire, and are the propaganda thugs, for its criminal elites. The Associated Press, and Michael Glover could have raised these issues to expose the double standards, class and imperial standards that would have supported Wright over Obama's pathetic political, and opportunistic capitulation. The Associated press and its Western journalists have degenerated into this kind of ideological class rot and manipulation.

PartisanHack:

Your illiberalism will bring down Obama himself, and you would be wrong to examine this reality in its narrow focused class double standards, typical of class liberals, who always fall on their own contradictions.

I totally agree with you! That is why we might as well go with Hillary at least we know what we getting!
Obama will keep selling out this one and this one just to be politically correct! Remember Colin Powell and his UN presentation. He lost self respect and quiet,but Obama will keep playing the game!

I want America to have a Black president to represent all people fairly, but Obama is not that guy.

Once and for all let's stop lying to American people and the rest of the world. If America going to do its dirty things might as well do it in the open and let's stop pretending how innocent, democratic, and pro freedom are American foreign and domestic policies.

IgortheTroll:

Excellent point. If everyone of the Presidential candidates condones illegal aggression, the Iraqi and Syrian attacks, and says nothing, why would any of them offer a real opposition against the war in Iran, when they attack it, since they are still complicit in these crimes.

Let me remind everyone, that Martin Luther King himself did a broadside against the criminal foreign policies of the U.S. class empire, with his infamous speech on Vietnam.

How about this folks:

To his family, King was murdered because he was no longer the King of the March on Washington, simply asking for the whites only signs to come down. He had grown radical: the King of 1968 was trying to build an interracial coalition to end the war in Vietnam and force major economic reforms--starting with guaranteed annual incomes for all. They charge that the government, probably with Lyndon Johnson's knowledge, feared King might topple the "power structure" and had him assassinated. "The economic movement was why he was killed, frankly," Martin Luther King III told NEWSWEEK. "That was frightening to the powers that be." They allege there were political reasons, too. "RFK was considering him as a vice presidential candidate," says Dexter, King's third child. "It's not widely known or discussed, [but] obviously those watching him knew of it. They [Kennedy and King] were both considered powerful and influential in terms of bringing together a multiracial coalition."

The powers that be are really frightened by the prospect of an Obama presidency. Back when Obama was a non threat there was no problem. Now that he is on the verge and the white elite power structure can find no dirt, they are scared and will do anything to protect their power. Reverend Wright was nothing compared to the character assassination they have in mind. We have already seen it in action but the most intense is yet to come. They attack Michelle Obama no matter she says. There is NOTHING they won't do. We know the game that is being played so you all might as well stop pretending because it is laid out already...

Divide and conquer has always been the way to keep the African American community in disarray. That is what is happening here. These people have even divided the Democratic party and are sitting back counting the days til John McCain takes the White House.

Has Michelle Obama ever been busted for drugs? If she had you would have know it from day one.

Has Obama ever been an adulterer, lied straight up to the American people? I submit you would have know it from day one.

Has Michelle and Barack ever been accused of commiting one of the biggest election frauds in the country? I submit you would have known about it.

There are a ton of examples of the double standard being exposed for all to see. Black folks know what the republicans and their enablers the republican controlled media are doing and have been doing for years. It is a disgrace and despicable but it must be effective because it keeps working.

A house divided will not stand. The black community will not be divided by the tricks being perpetrated upon it and it will not throw Obama or Reverend Wright under the proverbial bus.

MLK reference.

I also think it is amazing how anything negative about Obama seems to flare up (since Super Tuesday) right before a primary Hillary Clinton needs to win is held. NOTHING Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton seems to stay in the news long.

Bill Clinton can take $800,000 from Colombia businesses interested in the free trade agreement. NO conflict of interest there. Just drop it in the joint bank account.

Bill Clinton can take $1.2 million from Chinese businesses but again there is no conflict of interest there just drop it in the joint bank account.

Oh there is more on the Clintons AND John and Cindy McCain but right now let's just tear the black candidate to smithereens that always works. We'll save the Clintons for later once we bring this "boy" down and put him in his place.

Barack Obama you are too good for this country. They do not appreciate you nor do they deserve your sacrifice. Not all but enough of them of all colors...

There is more to the Clintons than the media cares to report. There is more to John McCain than the media cares to report.

Now that he is on the verge and the white elite power structure can find no dirt, they are scared and will do anything to protect their power.

I find that insanely funny considering that if you check the demographics, next to African Americans, Obama's next strongest supporters are elite "latte drinking" wealthy white people. It's the working class blue collar white folk who are supporting Hillary.

Adam:

I do believe that is correct.

They may be the rich latte drinkers but they are not controlling the news media. They are not the Rupert Murdochs of the world. Adam from your white world you and I see things quite differently. Just like those of your ilk you seek to marginalize how I feel by making my comment seem like it is a joke or something not to be considered.

Oh there is more on the Clintons AND John and Cindy McCain but right now let's just tear the black candidate to smithereens that always works. We'll save the Clintons for later once we bring this "boy" down and put him in his place.

Race grieving as a way of life is a prescription for disaster, for the countrty and for the individuals involved in it.

John you are on ignore for a reason.

Mary, I second that on 1.25!

It is very hard for anyone of any race or gender to identify with powerlessness until they have experienced it firsthand. It is a gift to have that perspective and not many whites understand it yet. I had to go through the experience of powerlessness myself to fully grasp it. I appreciate your comments.

I just love that ignore feature!

Thank you Monica.

The experience of being without power is something that needs to be written about--I might do it, but will have to think long and hard how to phrase and explain it--from my own perspective.

If you ask me ad hoc what the conversation so long past due in America is--, it would be less about race and more about power.

I might be wrong--I often am.

njb

I just love that ignore feature!

Kool! What does it do? ...If you can still read the post....
Tickle your fancy?
I just gotta know....so maybe I can find a use for it?

He denounced the rants from yesterday pretty roundly. Here's a far more robust version of the story from Politico: linky

I still don't understand why those who hate Obama require him to "denounce" his reverend, when Parsley has said worse and no action is required of McCain.

I still haven't heard obama denounce the man.....did I miss something? It seems the good Reverend is throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at Obama to force him to do just such.

Then I guess that you didn't listen to what he said today in this televised press conference, when he says of Wright's views "I believe that they are wrong, I believe that they are destructive", when he says that they were offensive, that they go against everything that he's about, that it directly contradicts everything that he's done in his life, that it contradicts everything that he's said on the campaign trail, what more do you need? If you really care about truth, then listen to his press conference. What I think that you'll hear is a Christian distressed because his former pastor decided to go off the deep end in public. You have a half hour of viewing that will show in every single word that Obama rejects Wright's ridiculous antics.

Not to mention that he actively sought out Hagee's endorsement, and said he's "glad to have it."

Edit: Referencing McCain, RE: #2.2.

I still haven't heard obama denounce the man.....did I miss something?

Did i miss something? Tell me Lisaed, if he did, would it change your opinion of him? Seriously, if he denounced the Rev. today, tomorrow you'd be asking why it took so long... or saying its too little, too late... or whatever... Bottom line, you don't like Obama, you've made that abundantly clear these past months here on the 'vine. I very seriously doubt there's anything that Obama could do or say to cause you to like him or, god forbid, vote for him. So, tell me Lisa, what's the point?

Seriously, if he denounced the Rev. today, tomorrow you'd be asking why it took so long... or saying its too little, too late... or whatever..

Jim - it will be up to the voters to determine if this was enough, surely not up to me - because as you say I don't like him. Never did.

Tell me Lisaed, if he did, would it change your opinion of him?

notice of course she couldn't answer that question with a simple "no, I'm just being a partisan soldier, plain and simple"

I mean, you got a:

I don't like him. Never did.

but, Lisaed, was anything he said capable of changing your mind? or can you just be honest and say, "short of him healing my sister's cancer by laying hands on her and thus proving he's a messenger of God, I was gonna trash him on Newsvine either way"

it will be up to the voters to determine if this was enough, surely not up to me

then you going on and on about it serves what purpose then? What's your intent if not to sway opinions?

It strikes me that Obama is really outraged by the hurtfull comments that Wright is making about how Obama is posturing politically just to "say and do the things politicians have to do to get elected."

I can't gauge the level of outrage Obama has about all the comments but he is clearly and directly angered that Wright is calling him a "typical politician" who postures for votes.

It strikes me that Obama is really outraged by the hurtfull comments that Wright is making about how Obama is posturing politically just to "say and do the things politicians have to do to get elected."

Yeah, that's kind of how it's reading to me as well, TopJedi.

Obama didn't like it when the media pundits claimed that he "really did" believe and absorb everything Wright said, and transfered all of Wright's beliefs to Obama.

And now, Wright has pretty much done the exact same thing.

TopJedi, Stacy, I hope you two are right. But I'm a bit worried that Obama's statements today represents his succumbing to media and popular pressure to throw Wright under the bus, so ironically doing what Wright suggests he was doing in response to Wright's suggestion that this is what he was doing. I'm probably not making sense... but I'd better hold off until tonight when I get a chance to actually see Obama's press conference.

Well, what really surprises me is that if Rev. Wright really wanted to help the black community, really wanted to help Obama, really wanted to show the "love of Jesus", he would stop criticizing Obama, go home and be quiet until at least after the election.

I would think the entire black community would be as outraged as Obama is about Rev. Wright's motives and his mouth. I can't speak for the black community but this is really decisive and unnecessary criticisms between Wright and Obama.

The media and critics are going to fuel the fight and Wright looks like he will accept every opportunity to speak out.

lisaed
I still haven't heard obama denounce the man.....did I miss something? It seems the good Reverend is throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at Obama to force him to do just such.

This comment made in this thread makes me laugh. Nobody seems to have pointed the hilarity out yet and that makes me a sad panda.

Funny enough, I think Wright came out with his speeches to help Obama. By playing to the image that was painted of him, he shows how moderate Obama is in contrast to him, demonstrates there is no conjunction between the two of them and allows Obama to get fed up and denounce him.

What might hurt Obama is coming out against the guy. It's an unwinnable position for him. Denouncing the guy, means opponents can now hit him with having "sat there listening to those sermons for 20 years"- as the refrain goes, while surely all along he must have known the guy was "peddling hate" (another refrain).

I just suspect that the people who would care too much about Wright would never have voted for Obama in the first place.

It seems clear to me that the strongest repudiation of Wright is Obama's life and actions, his rhetoric, his themes, his approach. Obama is NOT divisive, and quite obviously not racist. Obama just had to hold out that contrast and let the debate rage until somebody asks in the mainstream; what even is the point of this whole nonsense?

Does anyone really seriously think Obama is racist? What is the risk to the US Presidency of Obama being a member of Wright's church?

I don't think anyone can create a scary scenario based on Obama having attended TUCC. If they could why are they not painting the scenarios? Why is it all wink wink?

Funny enough, I think Wright came out with his speeches to help Obama. By playing to the image that was painted of him, he shows how moderate Obama is in contrast to him, demonstrates there is no conjunction between the two of them and allows Obama to get fed up and denounce him.

Funny enough, that's kinda working on me. The more Wright speaks, the more I like Obama. It doesn't even have to do with the specific words they speak, but more about the general attitude. I think BlaiseP, hit the nail on the head when he called Rev. Wright The Divider Not the Uniter. Whether there are merits or not in what Wright says, his attitude and the way he goes about saying it does not help his cause at all. He speaks to be divisive. This is stark contrast to Obama, who throughout the campaign has sought to at least want unity and compromise. Whether he can achieve those goals is another matter, but he at least seems to be honest about desiring those outcomes.

I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Senator Obama, being as our politics do differ in some significant ways (though not completely), but I have gained some respect for the man.

lisaed:

When one turns against both Wright and Martin Luther King's correct analysis of Amerika being a violent terrorist state, with its fascist foreign policies, by appeasing the class thugs who you defend, then he has just buried himself with his own cowardice, fascist appeasement, as Olbermann has said of the whole democratic party, a pollitical class of Neville Chamberlains, in the service of oligarchy, corporate and imperial Empire, whether it is the corporate fascist state of Nazi Germany or Fascist Amerikan class Empire.

That was several years ago, and most of the Democratic class whores have financed an illegal occupation, now another 197 Billion, into the year 2009, participating in the crimes of Nazi Germany, genocide against Iraqis, drones, and robot executions, Terminator, corporate fascist global policies, torture, imperial aggressions, the latest revelation against Israel and U.S. complicity. Such a kitchen sink deserves to be thrown at the Oabama coward who cannot stand on principle, thanks to its liberal class appeasers.

What might hurt Obama is coming out against the guy.

I am waiting for the concern trolling on the right to start - the articles about "OMG! Obama threw black churches "under the bus" for political reasons! What will this mean to black voters!!!??!!?!??!"

They've already started on the "Well, I guess Obama doesn't represent change after all, he's really a politician!" Because apparently your only options are overthrowing the government or being a tool.

It seems clear to me that the strongest repudiation of Wright is Obama's life and actions, his rhetoric, his themes, his approach.

I agree. I also think this point is interesting when we compare it to the Republican's relationships with people like Hagee, Falwell, etc. There has been a lot of people that have claimed that for some reason, we cannot compare preachers and pastors on the right to Wright. And I agree with them.

They aren't similar, because if we look at the issues Obama is running on, and who he is representing as a leader, we find that the church isn't at the forefront of that. The church does not have a stranglehold on him as a candidate, and he is under no obligation by his party to give in to any demand the church puts out.

However, when we do look at these Republican pastors, and look at the GOP party platform, the issues are similar - culture wars (anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-islam, pro-theocracy, etc) are at the forefront of many GOP campaigns. It's the same damn campaign. It's gotten to the point that Republican candidates need people like Hagee and Parsley to endorse them, because the party is so intertwined with right-wing churches.

And that to me is a hell of a lot more concerning then "20 years" at Wright's church. I don't care how long Obama attended a church, I care about if that church's platform is going to show up in the issues Obama is running on. And so far, Obama hasn't show us it will, he's shown he is independent of the church's demands. Republican candidates are not, we've watched quite a few contenders now actually completely flip their positions on social issues once they started eying the White House, because it was necessary for them to appease pastors on the right.

In fact Stacy, what would be most positive from all this Wright thing is for people to start throwing these crazy preachers under the bus one by one, and removing their voice from the political stage. That'd be a brilliant progressive victory.

But instead people say McCain's Hagee is ok, because McCain doesn't attend his church.

Apart from the arbitrary and meaningless distinction, it shows it's not a rational issue. Either people are guilty of their crazy associations or they are not. Otherwise someone has to explain what the threshold of association is that must exist to establish guilt-especially since people say raising Obama's acquaintance with the Weatherman guy is valid. Seeking endorsement. Irrelevant. The guy lives in your neighbourhood. Totally relevant.

It's identity politics. The whole idea is to say; "Obama's really one of those crazy black guys from Chicago". And it becomes a referendum on crazy black guys from Chicago.

It's a corruption of the political process. Obama is not a crazy guy from Chicago-as far as we know so far.

In fact Stacy, what would be most positive from all this Wright thing is for people to start throwing these crazy preachers under the bus one by one, and removing their voice from the political stage. That'd be a brilliant progressive victory.

Definitely. And I think we will start to see that. When the Wright thing first broke, my thoughts were that this was another instance of the Republican pundits jumping in headfirst without testing the depth of the pool beforehand. And although this will work out in their favor (I still think a Democrat will take the White House, but I don't think we'll see the massive body slam that some of us were hoping for), the fact is that after this election, Wright's not going to be around anymore.

But Hagee, Parsley, Dobson, Bob Jones University, the Legacy of Falwell, and all the rest of them still will.

Apart from the arbitrary and meaningless distinction, it shows it's not a rational issue. Either people are guilty of their crazy associations or they are not.

Otherwise someone has to explain what the threshold of association is that must exist to establish guilt-especially since people say raising Obama's acquaintance with the Weatherman guy is valid.

I think this debate is determining the "threshhold of association" for reasonable "guilt" by association. It is not "either your guilty or your not" but more a question of degrees. How much has that association influenced your ideology, your behavior and your goals.

Wright has been very consistent as far as I can tell on the liberation theology that he teaches. The old sermons and snippets that are being brought up are confirmed by Wright as accurate but out of context. While I don't care for many of the things that Wright says I see no inconsistencies with how he expresses his positions.

Forget Ayers, in my mind he is simply a cooky neighbor and probably couldn't influence Obama to even purchase a pair of shoes. Wright on the other hand has been credited with great influence and with the sermon for which Obama's book was inspired by. There is or existed for a time a much deeper ideological or spiritual connection between Wright and Obama and that is a meaningful question of degree.

So the question in my mind is not "Did Wright significantly influence Obama?" but "How much and in what direction did Wright significantly influence Obama?"

You see that? It's all a set of questions. And your questions are fair questions. In fact, if that was the frame into which the Wright coverage was put, I'd have no problem with it.

The way I tend to see these things is that I look at that question and wonder what could be the worst that could be found out.

I wonder-could it be that Obama is a racist, divisive, radical? And I just don't see how Obama's that. It'd be too obvious if he were any of those. You just can't run such a large campaign- a fairly large organisation and that doesn't come out. And then I even go one step further and think-what if Obama were a racist what's the worst risk from that? Would he and can he do reverse discrimination? Would he maybe put all hungry Africans on the welfare in the US? I really see this as 0.2 on a scale of 10 in seriousness.

Unless he's just the supersonic manchurian candidate painstakingly programmed from birth to do what he's up to now.

I really do a get a kick out of this thread.

Part of it is "what about all the nefarious doings of Hillary, why aren't we focusing on that" (and not on BO), and another part is "what about McCain and Hagee, why aren't we focusing on that" (and not on BO).

And, finally, we have "who cares, Wright is BO."

All of this is mere obfuscation. You are who you hang with, period. This is absolutely a worthwhile area of investigation, and BO has come out with "too little, too late." He can't reasonably or rationally (or honestly) say he had absolutely no idea Wright espoused/believed these things.

And then Partisan says:

If you really care about truth, then listen to his press conference.

As if any politician is worthy of belief, be it BO or GW or HC. They say what will get them elected (Wright is correct about that).

Lisa says "I never liked him."

Well, gotta tell you, I don't think any of us even know enough about him to like or dislike. He is an enigma. I do believe the only way we will be able to tell who BO really is, is to look at his affiliations, who he affiliates with, and what those people believe in.

This shenanigans-ridden assumption voids your entire argument.

All of this is mere obfuscation. You are who you hang with, period.

I don't think any of us even know enough about him to like or dislike.

Wmolaw 2.21 - then the DNC has some nerve trying to fly him up the flag pole for President then now don't they? I think Obama's performance yesterday ---his trying to tell us that he was some how "shocked" and "surprised" by the rantings of Rev Wright is completely disingenuous and assumes we are a buncha idiots who don't know any better. We do.

Lisa:

We do.

By reviewing the comments on this thread, I would suspect that the majority, the great majority of the posters do not.

And why shouldn't they fly him up the flagpole? He's young, good looking, bright, articulate. In other words, a perfect tv candidate. Of course they would fly him up the flagpole.

wmolaw, the reason you can't assume Barack Obama is like Rev. Wright in his views simply by his association with the man is because Obama is a man who reconciles. He is not reactionary. He measures the situation and makes a response. His response for the last few weeks was patience with Wright. His response now is differentiation. He must make space between himself and Rev. Wright.

No one is perfect. Mr. Obama is admired by many, but all persons fail at something. McCain, Clinton, Bush, Ron Paul or any other person you put in the oval office will make mistakes sometimes. I don't recall anyone claiming to be perfect.

Most of us Dems do know (and like) a lot about Obama.

You can have your DC insider and career senator, McCain.

By reviewing the comments on this thread, I would suspect that the majority, the great majority of the posters do not.

wmolaw: To clarify, when I said "we do" I meant we "American voters" do, not we "majority of posters on this thread". I think from my own experience here that Newsvine posters tend to favor very strongly Barack Obama.

Monica:

I have many friends that I have known for over twenty years. I know their beliefs, their foibles, their vices.

There is no doubt, one really cannot doubt (not and be true to themselves) that BO knew the positions, beliefs of Wright. To contest this simple fact is to deny reality, in my opinion.

Thus, BO is given two choices when he decides to run. 1) If he does not believe in Wright's positions, he says "I don't believe in what he believes, but he is a friend. That is good enough for me. or 2) If he believes in Wright's opinions, beliefs, he says, "look at what he is saying. You may not like the messenger, but the message is right."

He tried, initially, to do the first. Using the "context" argument. Wright's statements were taken out of context, listen to the entire sermon. Then he used the "oh, I wasn't there all that often, I really never heard him say this stuff.

Both were terrible, weak positions and, frankly, untrue.

And his handlers know that now. And so he has now made the decision to rebuke and distance himself from Wright as Wright has made it clear that his positions were not "taken out of context," etc.

I see this as flip flopping, and I think many do as well. I would have admired him much more if he had kept with number 1, I disagree with him, we argue about it all the time, but he is my friend.

And you're right, no one is perfect, especially in politics. I am sure that BO, like GW, HC, take orders/direction from their handlers who they believe (after all, that's what they get paid for) can handle the situation most effectively for them to gain their goal.

The Jones Girl.

I have looked, even read one of his books and I am not getting much about the man. I guess we differ in that respect. I tend not to believe anyone who writes about themselves. I tend to believe third parties who know the person well.

I tend to believe third parties who know the person well.

So you believe third person accounts over first person.

But I think you believe that which is politically expedient for your worldview.

wmolaw 2.28- barack obama initially refused to throw his pastor under the bus (saying he could no sooner disown his black pastor than he could his white grandmother) because he feared he would offend black people (he knows he needs that 97% to get to the nomination)....now that he's got that black vote all tied up with a nice bow he needs to pander to whites which is what he did in his press conference earlier this week.

because he feared he would offend black people...

lol, source?

Ah, Lisa--you expose more of the Republican psyche in your words than you damn Obama. LOL.

I think Obama is "renouncing" specific statements Rev Wright made. I myself didn't realize he had made specific statements about hating white people. Many of the controversial statements are about things I can understand, whether or not I agree completely with Rev Wright's interpretation of them.

Racial reconciliation is a real and necessary force in our world. How would you do it? Obama's conciliatory methods and the teachings of MLKJ and the work of whites who embrace their brother's and sister's anguish over the conditions they have faced are the best we have to offer right now.

You appear to be upset because someone else did things that you have been taught are unforgivable. It is not an unpardonable crime for someone to hate America (although that is not Wright's position- I am speaking in general here). It is wise to try to put oneself "in the shoes" of people who hate America to understand why they feel that way. Being able to do that is a good thing. Not being willing to do that is an unforgivable trait in US leadership.

Obama's abilities to relate to other people's perspective is a characteristic that we cannot neglect in our future presidents. It should be required of our leadership by every American.

Monica:

short response.

It is not an unpardonable crime for someone to hate America

Of course not, but that doesn't mean I should vote for someone that does? Right?

My only point here (which folks seem to wish to twist) is that BO has flipped, then flopped on this issue. It is most likely because of his handlers. His different positions,though he has tried to reconcile them, are hurting him and his attempts at reconciling these different positions are, frankly, unbelievable.

This leaves people believing the worst.

As to racial reconciliation, that is another thread.

For you to say that Obama hates America reveals that you are not evaluating him at all, but rather speaking from your prejudiced conceptual lense. Frustration over America and being able to articulate it well is a lost art in America because anyone who speaks to her injustices can no longer do so without being labeled.

Agree! His flip flop for the handlers made me dislike him!

Well said, Monica!

What's more American: to question authority or to swear blind allegiance to it? To submit to the ruling elite or to stand up to it? To respect political dissent or to dismiss dissenters as traitors? To be a passive subject that bows to royalty, or an active citizen that stands up as a check and balance to a government's natural tendency toward corruption and subversion of democracy? To use one's freedom of speech to express doubt or objection to the nation's actions, or to use it to shout down dissenters as un-American?

VAS The founding fathers of America would be proud of your words!

Well spoken, Vas. I would vote for that twice.

Monica:

Did I say that? I don't think so.

I was responding to your general statement.

If you took that incorrectly, sorry. But that is not my lookout.

If you thought it was implied, it wasn't.

"It is not an unpardonable crime for someone to hate America"

Of course not, but that doesn't mean I should vote for someone that does? Right?

You said you should not vote for someone who hates America and I contend that you are obviously not evaluating Barack Obama, as he loves our country. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Monica 2.41- in the NYT/CBS poll published just today - only 29 percent of registered voters said they considered Obama to be "very patriotic" vs. 40% for Ms. Clinton and 70% for Mccain.

I think Hillary has more Balls than the two put together!
She did castigated Wild Bill. LOL

But this is not the point!

@2.42 Lisa, looks like a typical sampling problem to me. You can fix that easily.

Actually, Monica, I disagree with you. I don't doubt the accuracy of the poll lisaed sites. The problem is how Americans today define "patriotic". Rather than the kind of patriotism that I suggest above, a patriot is now unfortunately defined as someone who wheres a flag pin on their lapel, who never criticizes America, who categorically denies that America could do evil.

In other words, the poll isn't a reflection of Obama's patriotism so much as it is a reflection of how people define patriotism.

The McCain that is the most patriotic in the founding fathers sense is the McCain that denounces torture. The funny thing is that it is this McCain that the Republicans hate the most.

Vas 2.45- I would modify the definition as follows: Patriots can criticize America (heck the democratic party seems to make it's living that way these days). Patriots believe in freedom of speech so criticism is fine. And patriots take pride in knowing that however imperfect America may be she is a greater source of good in this world than of evil.

Vas 2.45- I would modify the definition as follows: Patriots can criticize America (heck the democratic party seems to make it's living that way these days). Patriots believe in freedom of speech so criticism is fine. And patriots take pride in knowing that however imperfect America may be she is a greater source of good in this world than of evil.

Vas 2.45- I would modify the definition as follows: Patriots can criticize America (heck the democratic party seems to make it's living that way these days). Patriots believe in freedom of speech so criticism is fine. And patriots take pride in knowing that however imperfect America may be she could be a greater source of good in this world than of evil.

Monica:

You said you should not vote for someone who hates America and I contend that you are obviously not evaluating Barack Obama, as he loves our country. Thank you for agreeing with me.

I have no idea what you are saying. Unless this is just some sort of "gotcha" post, which so many on this site seem to be.

I was not saying that BO hates America. You made a general statement, and I responded to that general statement in a general way.

Why is it that people seem to wish to twist posts?

I think Igor's is better. The American ideal is what I am loyal to, and when America fails to live up to those ideals, it can in some instances be a greater source of harm (I don't really like the term "evil") than of good. Ironically, and beautifully, one of the American ideals is that we are a country willing to question ourselves. How many other countries allow their citizens to express the opinion openly that America bares some responsibility for the rise of terrorism? You see, that is what makes us better than Iran, Syria, North Korea and many other places.

So when you denounce Wright, a person who has served this country a million times more than Cheney has... when you denounce Wright as unpatriotic for saying that America reaps what it sows, then I consider that unpatriotic. To be clear, it is not because you disagree with Wright, it is because you label him unpatriotic simply for saying America did some serious wrong that increase the amount of hate and violence in this world.

To be sure Wright has quite a bit of anger, and even hate. I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on the radio yesterday. He had a caller who was conservative McCain supporter. But this caller pointed out why Wright's point of view is entirely natural, and that the media is being unfair to Wright. The caller said he was in the military the same time as Wright. He said it was obvious to him that Wright was a young black man who was passionately patriotic and loved his country, but that the love was turned to bitterness because of how he was treated in the military. The caller, who was white, said that at that time commanders most often did not use black soldier's names, but instead used "@!$%#" when speaking to them or about them.

Vas:

First off, I have never called Wright "unpatriotic." Ain't in my make up to do so. Why do you assert I did?

I don't understand why posters do that. Frankly, it is offensive.

The caller, who was white, said that at that time commanders most often did not use black soldier's names, but instead used "@!$%#" when speaking to them or about them.

So, his limited experience with military superiors alters his entire belief system?

Hmmmm.

I have pondered this issue many times, should personal, experiences guide your beliefs about a subject in general? I have come to the conclusion that such experience tends to do so, but one should fight against it.

Maybe Wright should consider that? Maybe all who allow their thinking about an entire country to be shaded/altered by a tiny portion of that society should think about that? Maybe all who allow their thinking about a race to be shaded/altered because of their own, personal experiences, may wish to think about that.

Every coin has two sides. If that is a justification for Wright, is that not a justification for the racist who became that way because a friend/loved one was murdered by a black man?

This is a complicated issue, and in my opinion the vitriol of Wright is not, in any way, helping. Just as the KKK does not help, just as groups who are racist against any other group do not help by giving in to their desire to generalize (a strong desire, possibly even a psychological imperative).

If racism is to go by the wayside, it will take both sides to eradicate it.

You see, that is what makes us better than Iran, Syria, North Korea and many other places.

vas - 2.49 - agreed. But separately what I don't understand is why you continue to defend Wright when even Obama has opted to throw him under the bus?

vas Exactly! So how can we trust Obama to challenge the status quo, if he is not even willing to stand up to it before he gets the job!

Please just tell me, would you hire a job applicant who cannot fill out a resume, but just tells you he or she can read and write?

What Obama is demonstrated that he is willing to say and do anything to get the job as a President. To extrapolate on this, he will say and do anything to keep the job as President!

He is just a job applicant and we are his employers. We need to keep the fantasies, illusions, and ideologies out of this and make it clean and dry! Can he do the job of the American President? And doing the job as American President is not about compromising and satisfying the wants of special interest groups but about representing the constituency - the American people.

With Hillary and Mccain we know what we getting, but with Obama? What surprise will there be in stored for us? I just see him as an eloquent puppet! (Sorry for the sharp refute.)

Obama throwing Wright under the bus doesn't make Wright wrong. Do you think Vas is an Obama bot who must agree with Obama? Wright was factually wrong and cuckoo about quite a few things, but he's also right about a lot of things he's being vilified for. Part of the problem with him is is irresponsibility in expressing his views. The irresponsibility automatically makes him wrong to a lot of people.

Obama throwing Wright under the bus doesn't make Wright wrong. Do you think Vas is an Obama bot who must agree with Obama?

oluseye 2.53- No, I do not think vas is an obama bot particularly when he dares to continue to defend the Reverend Wright ---which is clearly off obama-bot message.

wmolaw

First off, I have never called Wright "unpatriotic." Ain't in my make up to do so. Why do you assert I did?

I was speaking to lisaed. Sorry for not being clear.

I don't understand why posters do that. Frankly, it is offensive.

On that we greatly agree. Thank you for saying it!

But I have a problem with much of the rest you write. Who said it changed his entire belief system? He believed in an ideal, and he ran smack dab into the concrete wall of reality. The fact that he chose to speak up and fight to change the system proves that he stayed truer to his beliefs than most people do. Whether he chose the wisest or even the most unwise way to achieve the ideals is a separate question. But the biggest problem I have is that your statements keep implying that Wright is a racist. Both of your comparisons (the murder scenario, the KKK) and not fair comparisons. There's a difference between prejudice and racism, especially when that prejudice is grounded in some reality.

Institutional racism against blacks is a reality. White misunderstanding of black subculture is a reality, though this is becoming less and less (even this big debate is helping), and the younger generations are less fearful than the older -- hence the greater support among young people for Obama. The military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about is a reality (Blackwater is a blatant, but not lone, example). America's foreign policy not being fair to other nations is a reality, and the resentment that engenders is a reality.

lisaed,

vas - 2.49 - agreed. But separately what I don't understand is why you continue to defend Wright when even Obama has opted to throw him under the bus?

Good question. Because I am not a lemming, or a Koolaide drinker, which you and many like you dismiss Obama supporters to be. And I have nuanced, complex opinions that reflect the complexity of reality, not brutish black and white ones (and this is another reason I like Obama). I am going to write about this this weekend and publish on Monday, if I get the time. But in the meantime I'll just state a couple of things: [1] Wright did say some things I disagree with, but I disagree much more greatly with how he is being demonized (Hey, another reason I like Obama!) and [2] Obama had only two paths in front of him: take the purest, highest road and be a political martyr (because white America is still too racist and/or ignorant of the black condition) or take a road slightly lower but still a high road, which is try his best to help white Americans understand Wright (and blacks understand whites), but pick and choose another day and way to do it because he was doomed to lose this one. America needs both kinds of people, those who chose the first path (MLK) and those who chose the second (Obama).

Igor, I think I answered your question.

Thanks Oluseye, that was right on.

How is Rev Wright irresponsible? He does not speak for Obama. He speaks for himself and for the Church that he was a pastor for.

Obama needs to speak for himself and stop condemning and denouncing other people.

Obama needs to speak for himself and stop condemning and denouncing other people.

Hmm, I wonder if he's going to be asked in any of the general debates to explain to what extent he believes America's policies are responsible for getting us attacked on 9/11, whether three strike laws are biased against blacks, etc...Basically all the things the Reverend said. If he answers, for instance that, three strike laws (for which Reverend Wright accused the US of being the U.S. KKK of A) are NOT racially biased against blacks, will that offend blacks. If he answers that three strike laws ARE biased against blacks, I can pretty much guarantee it will offend many whites.

With the views of blacks and whites being so different on some issues (kinda thinking of the reaction to the O.J. verdict here), is he going to be forced to come down either on one side or the other on the issues that divide the races? And, not just the races, but the "Patriotic" and the "Patriotic through dissention". Interesting, Igor.

but pick and choose another day and way to do it

Vas -2.55 - and just what other day and way would that be? Anyhoo - Obama finally chose to throw Rev Wright under the bus this week because he apparently got word from superdelegates that the time to do so was IMMEDIATELY IF NOT SOONER.

Igor, I consider him irresponsible because he should know that his words are divisive and would offend many people. I think he could have said the exact same things in a different way, communicating the same thing, but much less offensively.

Fred, I do not think he needs to justify every policy ruling this way or that way, before he actually he gets elected.

Oluseye, In the same light Obama did not have to denounce Rev Wright, but he could have just said that those are his believes and he Obama has his own.

Rev Wright, spoke for himself, the Church and his parishioners not on behalf of a possible Presidential nominee.

Igor I agree that Obama did not do the right thing. But the press wouldn't let him focus on his campaign at a crucial period.

I believe Obama should simply have underlined the contrast between himself and Wright in substantive ways while pointing out what he sees wrong about Wright's statements. But can you imagine 7000 press people calling your campaign everyday (I'm not sure of the exact number) while you want to talk of other issues. That's crippling.

Obama had to do it. He might just have had to do it.

Igor -- Yea, but in the same way that blacks don't like knee-jerk, demonization by whites, whites don't like the same in reverse. Obama can't have credibility as someone who can span and bridge the racial divide, he needs to react as strongly to the "US government invented AIDS" notion as he does to notions that blacks are unfairly targeted by government institutions, particularly drug laws and the criminal justice system.

Igor, we need all types in this world. Tension is important. *insert Tao symbol here* We need radicals who question the status quo. We also need people who defend tradition. We need people who rebel. We need both conservatives and liberals. We need people who act as bridges. I think the latter is what we need most for president right now. Bridges between Americans and a bridges between Americans and the rest of the world.

Igor, we need all types in this world. Tension is important. *insert Tao symbol here* We need radicals who question the status quo. We also need people who defend tradition. We need people who rebel. We need both conservatives and liberals. We need people who act as bridges. I think the latter is what we need most for president right now. Bridges between Americans and a bridges between Americans and the rest of the world.

Good post, vas. My hat's off.

Vas, I hear what you saying, but he is not King David!

Thanks, Fred.

Though I completely botched the first paragraph. Should have been:

In the same way that blacks don't like knee-jerk, demonization by whites, whites don't like the same in reverse. Obama can't have credibility as someone who can span and bridge the racial divide if he doesn't react as strongly to the "US government invented AIDS" notion as he does to notions that blacks are not unfairly targeted by government institutions, particularly drug laws and the criminal justice system.

vas, he should have hired you as his adviser!

Now if a troll pays you a compliment, is it really a compliment? ;)

You better be careful, or I will Troll you for life..:)

Vas @2.45

I agree 100% with what you are saying, I just don't believe that poll is accurately sampling any ideas that have to do with who will be our next president.

o.O
I win!

You do, indeed. I think that Bill Clinton has been working overtime as Mr. Dirty Tricks.

BTW, apparently Wright's appearance in front of the National Press Club was arranged by a supporter of the Hillary Clinton campaign. This was a set-up by people trying to create divisiveness.

"There they go again".....and in record time.
Now we can wait for pics of Hillary pulling on Wright's strings and doing his talking for him. ;-)

Now we can wait for pics of Hillary pulling on Wright's strings and doing his talking for him. ;-)

Not if the mainstream media can help it...

He needs to explain where he was for the 20 years this was going on.

I don't see why he should have to explain that at all. Why should he be judge by something his former pastor says and does? I would hope that no one judges me based on what my pastor says, especially since I disagree with most of his political stances.

If you don't like Obama fine, but please, please, please base it on his own works and not that of someone else.

kymlee---nobody makes obama do anything....latest polls show Hillary beating McCain in the general by 9 points and obama in dead heat with McCain---so Obama's previously trying to pretend that he was some how "above" the discussion of Rev Wright has not been helping him in the polls in the least. Today marks a change in the obama strategy. We'll just have to wait and see how it works out for him. It very soon will be in the hands of the superdelegates.

latest polls show Hillary beating McCain in the general by 9 points and obama in dead heat with McCain

First, that was one poll, not polls: the AP-Ipsos poll. Second, it's no longer the latest. The new daily Gallup and Rasmussen polls out today have Obama over McCain +2 (both polls) and Clinton over McCain +2 and +1 (respectively). Until I see more movement in more polls, the AP-Ipsos poll appears to be an outlier.

Spiffie - sorry - I should have said POLL. I stand corrected....I agree this poll may be an outlier.....but it may be indicative still of the change in tide Hillary has been speaking about.

I have to agree with spiffie, besides all national polls are worthless. We don't elect presidents by the popular vote. The only polls that matter are state polls.

kymlee---nobody makes obama do anything

Huh? That seems a bit random...what were you responding to?

He needs to explain where he was for the 20 years this was going on.

Participating in efforts to clean up his community, of course. Where have you been for the that past decade?

...After graduating from Columbia University in 1983 with a major in political science, Obama worked as a financial consultant in New York City. But he was bored—and drawn to public service. In 1985, he moved to Chicago to work with local churches organizing job training and other programs for poor and working-class residents of Altgeld Gardens, a public housing project where 5,300 African-Americans tried to survive amid shuttered steel mills, a nearby landfill, a putrid sewage treatment plant, and a pervasive feeling that the white establishment of Chicago would never give them a fair shake.

...Kellman was looking for an organizer for the new Developing Communities Project (DCP), which would focus on black city neighborhoods. Obama, only 24, struck board members as "awesome" and "extremely impressive," and they quickly hired him, at $13,000 a year, plus $2,000 for a car--a beat-up blue Honda Civic, which Obama drove for the next three years organizing more than twenty congregations to change their neighborhoods

...One day a resident at Altgeld Gardens, a geographically isolated public housing project surrounded by waste sites, brought a notice about planned removal of asbestos from the project manager's office. Obama organized the community to find out if there was asbestos in their apartments. They persisted as officials lied and delayed, then took a bus--with far fewer people than Obama had anticipated--to challenge authorities downtown. Ultimately, the city was forced to test all the apartments and eventually begin cleaning them up...

..."We knew what was wrong in the community but we didn't know how to get something done about it," recalls Yvonne Lloyd, 78, who worked with Obama. Obama insisted on "staying in the background while he empowered us." By Obama's own admission, there were few big victories. But whether it was getting the city to fill potholes, provide summer jobs, or remove asbestos from the apartments or persuading the apartment managers to repair toilets, pipes, and ceilings, Obama encouraged residents to come up with their own priorities with the gentle admonition: "It's your community."

He saw that a lot of his efforts in south Chicago was not making enough of a dent. So he went to an Ivy League school, became a civil rights attorney, later a Senator and now running for presidency to change the nation's class division on a grand scale.

...Obama's motive, according to De Sutter, was that he "wants to help create jobs and a decent future for those embittered youth" he encountered as a community organizer in Chicago's South Side. De Sutter quotes Johnnie Owens, a man who worked with Obama in Chicago's Developing Communities Project, and who eventually replaced him as its director. In 1995, Owens said,

"It's as if it's his mission in life, his calling, to work for social justice."

Oh, wait. What I really meant to say is that he was secretly conspiring with Reverend Wright all of that time... He's running for president so that he can act as Wright's puppet.

Just you wait, Caucasians will be marked with UPC codes and begin to mysteriously vanish, he will seat an all black cabinet and put the rest of us to work in cotton fields to show us the social injustice enslaved African Americans had to go through.

He probably would have done it sooner if he knew Rev. Wright was going to make a circus out of it.

At the time I don't think that it was clear to Obama just how engaged in dirty tricks the Clinton campaign had become. And as it was not a present event, not something done personally to offend him, I think that he was willing to put it in context. But as Wright's latest rant in front of the Washington Press Club was arranged by a Clinton supporter I think that the connection between Wright and Clinton's politics became more clear.

In the space of a few short weeks we've seen probably more dirty tricks, more smears, more ballot shenanigans, more dirty money, more downright slamming through proxies against Obama by the Clinton campaign then we say against John Kerry by Republicans in the entirety of the 2004 campaign. It's been disgusting. Sometimes I wonder if the Clintons are as afraid of what invesigators may find under an Obama administration about their own antics as they are about what would happen if a Democrat didn't get in at all. We can only hope for the best to set things straight in Washington - and as if previous incidents weren't enough, clearly this incident sponsored by a Clinton supporter shows that there's only one person in this race that's even close to being capable of doing so. Mr. Obama, please save us from the politics of divisiveness.

partisan:

Even if it was arranged by the Clintons--we have the fact that Rev. Wright was willing to participate in destroying Obama. Nice pastor, don't you think?

You're right about the Clintons, of course. But don't you love the way these same Clintons are always whining about the "smear tactics" they get from the Republicans? The right could take lessons from the Clintons. NO ONE DOES NASTY BETTER THAN A CLINTON!!!!

You really are a shameless hack dude.

From a one-issue troll.

This proves that some Obama supporters really are the scum of the earth.

Is this what Newsvine has become? There was a time when this community would not accept such attacks on people. Since the Vine became a part of MSNBC more and more of these types of comments have found their way into this environment.

John Russell you are a habitual offender and the people on this thread should have the decency to collapse your insulting comment.

I have a lot of issues, but somewhat limited time. If Obama stops lying about what he knew about Wright's 35 year old beliefs, I could take a breather.

Since the Vine became a part of MSNBC more and more of these types of comments have found their way into this environment.

Mary, MSNBC has shamelessly promoted the candidacy of Barak Obama for many months now? Where have you been?

No they haven't, and it's Barack.

B-a-r-a-c-k.

John 8.6- yes, it's kinda hard for obama to pretend he didn't hear what was ALL OVER the airwaves spewing from Rev Wright's mouth ad nauseum since last Friday. These were no longer clips taken out of context from OLD videotaped sermons ----but fresh words for the world to hear, not just those sitting in the pews of TUCC. I guess Rev Wright couldn't help himself when offered the chance to spew his garbage on the world stage----and obama be damned.

Yes they have. Mika Brzezinski, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams. That's about 80% of their on air talent. All in the tank for Obama. And blatantly so.

John 8.6- yes, it's kinda hard for obama to pretend he didn't hear what was ALL OVER the airwaves spewing from Rev Wright's mouth ad nauseum since last Friday. These were no longer clips taken out of context from OLD videotaped sermons ----but fresh words for the world to hear, not just those sitting in the pews of TUCC

Isn't it interesting. For weeks we heard the wailing about how Wright's 'snippets' were being taken out of context. How horrible and evil all the people were who were questioning this church and Rev Wright. I have personally taken a ton of criticism for bringing some of Wright's racist and anti-American beliefs to light, even more extensively than the MSM would deign to do.

So now what do we see? The context. Provided by Wright himself.

Vindication.

From a one-issue troll.

LOL Truth.

What do you suppose he's going to spend his days doing now that he can't show up on every thread and scream about scary black dudes while defending scary white dudes and seeding racist rants about how grateful blacks should be that whites enslaved them?

Vindication.

Yeah, not quite. But that is a lovely false dilemma you have there, JohnRussell. But know, I'm sure that Obama denouncing his pastor today means that every lie you and all the other haters pushed magically becomes fact.

LOL Truth.

What do you suppose he's going to spend his days doing now that he can't show up on every thread and scream about scary black dudes while defending scary white dudes and seeding racist rants about how grateful blacks should be that whites enslaved them?

Vindication.
Yeah, not quite. But that is a lovely false dilemma you have there, JohnRussell. But know, I'm sure that Obama denouncing his pastor today means that every lie you and all the other haters pushed magically becomes fact.

Rev Wright and Obama have been the ones lying. You see now what Wright is like. And he has been at this for 35 years. And we are supposed to believe that Obama knew very little about all this until very recently? This is lying on a monumental scale covering years and years.

John- I also do not buy for a minute that Obama was "shocked" "surprised" by the venom coming out of Rev Wright's mouth yesterday......."shocked" "surprised" that he threw Obama under the bus, maybe.

dudes and seeding racist rants about how grateful blacks should be that whites enslaved them?

There is nothing racist about what Buchanan said. I don't agree with some of it, but it's not racist. I wish I could say the same for Jeremiah Wright.

John - why do we have to dance around this issue ---why can't we just come right out and say what is quite evident to many??? - Rev Wright is the RACIST

John- I also do not buy for a minute that Obama was "shocked" "surprised" by the venom coming out of Rev Wright's mouth yesterday......."shocked" "surprised" that he threw Obama under the bus, maybe.

Is that what he said? I haven't seen the video yet. Oh my god, that is ridiculous, absurd, preposterous, unbelievable, ...a pile of crap.

but I haven't seen anything to indicate that style or volume to back and forth has changed since last year.

Even if there were a change in the style or volume, I think it's probably more explainable by the presidential campaign which has certainly been a hot topic every day since January. This is Newsvine's (as a site) presidential election, so we just don't have anything to compare it to. Assuming the Democrats wrap up their nomination by July, we should get a brief breather before things really start getting nasty in the Fall. ;-)

The people I named are BY FAR their biggest stars. And I left out Joe Scarborough who flip flops back and forth, as a sham 'respect' for Clinton. The station is a joke.

Rev Wright and Obama have been the ones lying.

I'm not talking about Wright's lies. I'm talking about yours. Obama getting upset with his pastor (for reasons I see and point out in post #2.9) in no way vindicates pundits and the media from their sound-bite hack fest.

You see now what Wright is like.

I already knew. What you actually have a problem with is not that I'm unfamiliar with Wright, it's that he doesn't bother me as much as he bothers you. Not his words, and not his connection with Obama. He doesn't bother me.

And we are supposed to believe that Obama knew very little about all this until very recently?

And the meme goes on... and the meme goes on.

No John, I don't think Obama expected Wright to use him as a weapon against his media critics. Which is what Obama is now calling him out for.

But it doesn't matter anymore, right? You won. Obama threw his preacher "under the bus". He needed to step up to his preacher, and like a good leader, he did. So now the question is, will hacks like yourself, who have done nothing but bleat about Wright, move on? Or do you have nothing else in your toolbox?

There is nothing racist about what Buchanan said.

John, there is something really wrong with a white man telling blacks they should be grateful for all the benevolent whites showered down upon them, like by enslaving them, hanging them from trees, and discriminating against them. There is something wrong with a white man describing "mainstream" America as white, and talking about how it would be just lovely if blacks could be part of "mainstream" America as well. Last I checked, people of color are Americans too (although to be fair, I don't hang out a RedState or FreeRepublic).

I fully realize you don't see this. But others do.

What do you suppose he's going to spend his days doing now

Well, if he is truly fair and balanced, he should be carrying on about Hagee and Parsley soon...

I already knew. What you actually have a problem with is not that I'm unfamiliar with Wright, it's that he doesn't bother me as much as he bothers you. Not his words, and not his connection with Obama. He doesn't bother me.

Stacy, I asked you time after time to indicate that you had even the slightest knowledge about the available explanatory materials associated with Wright and TUCC, and you never gave an inkling that you are familiar with the material. Your opinion is a non factor to anyone who knows what they are talking about concerning Wright. I have been proven correct by what has transpired. You've been proven to be 'out of it'.

Russell, here's like the 18th Newsvine thread in which I have asked you to link to the referenced materials and say what is wrong with them and stop the wink wink stuff. That's how hate spreaders work. It's always wink wink.

You have for example never articulated to me the risk to the US Presidency and America that Obama "listened to those sermons for 20 years". What is the risk?

He's going to change the "Red White and Blue" to "Red Green Black and Gold"? Or he'll make Louis Farrakhan the ambassador to Israel? I mean, what far-fetched scenario leads to this being a serious blight on America?

Specific information on Rev. Wright's bizarre theories and hate speech is readily available all over the internet. If you want to discuss some particular aspect of it, we can do that. I am not going to waste my time rehashing all the evidence every time someone who CHOOSES to remain ignorant about the topic tries to distract the issue.

I just love how you come here claiming to be the expert on what Wright has said but you simply can't point people to substance.

I am still baffled about two things:

1. How Wright's comments and anything he said shows that Obama shares his views.

2. What are the real specific risks to America or the world of Obama having attended his church.

I am showing that none of you that have been so eager to defend Obama about this, and for that matter eager to defend Wright until this past weekend ("it's all being taken out of context" "snippets" "dastardly racist right wingers") can display that you have any understanding of what Wright has been up to for 35 years.

I am not an expert on Wright or Black Liberation Theology, although I did take the book that Wright recommended as explaining his ministry out of the library and read most of it (It is very repetitive so I skipped over some). I bothered to go to the site that has posted pdf's of some church bulletins and issues of the church's monthly magazine. (For people who had done that, it was no "shock" that Wright would praise Farrakhan, he did it in the church magazine many months ago.) Barack Obama was simply lying yesterday when he said he was shocked by some of Wrights comments Monday, (and Obama SPECIFICALLY mentioned the Farrakhan comments as one of the things he was shocked to hear). This is utter nonsense. Obama has been well aware for years that Farrakhan and Wright were good friends.

Almost a year and a half ago Wright told Sean Hannity that if he wanted to understand him, his ministry and TUCC he should look into James Cone. Virtually no one from the mainstream media did this, and as a result nothing was learned about all this until well into the primary season. Barack Obama should fall to his knees every day and thank God, because if all this had happened last fall Obama would be back home in Chicago permanently.

The Obama media corps will do every thing they can to try and bury this issue now, but I it will linger and cost him any votes.

As the days go by and the subject comes up again, will the Obamaites on Newsvine be any better prepared to discuss the issue? I doubt it.

Fair enough. Two questions:

What did you get out of that book?

Why is James Cone's book a basis of whether Obama should be President or not?

John Russell I think you're a pretty swell guy for researching your arguments. Amazing concept. There is this method for achieving conclusions and one other.

There's a Cheech and Chong skit where they are walking and they stumble up on something.

"What is that?"..."I don't know, looks like s%$#!"..."Smell it."..."Smells like S%$#!"..."Hmmm, Taste it."..."Aw Man, Tastes like s%$#!"..."Then it must be s%$#!"

What did you get out of that book?

Why is James Cone's book a basis of whether Obama should be President or not?

James Cone's book is one of the things that informed Jeremiah Wright's view of the world. A major thing, no doubt. It is fair to say that Cone's late 60's early 70's black nationalist rhetoric is dated in the eyes of most Americans, including some/many black Americans. But the key, and reason Cone is relevant to this is because Cone was not irrelevant to Wright or TUCC. Cone's racializing of religion is evident throughout everything we see in TUCC and Rev. Wright.

It has been very disheartening to watch Barack Obama consistently lie about this issue. As a prominent , indeed, front running Presidential candidate, he is no doubt very embarrassed to have it on his resume that he was a member of this church for 17 years. There isn't a shred of doubt to people who really try to understand all this that Wright has been acting this way for ALL of that time. Obama accepted it, because it was part and parcel of the world he was living in at that time. He now cannot go back and rewrite that part of his background. It is up to the voters to decide if they want such a person as their President.

Wait wait wait wait, so the press now have to go and read a book that was read 40 years ago by John McCain's pastor because it influenced his pastor's views? I don't get it. Maybe because it just makes no sense.

And you still haven't told us what you got from reading James Cone. What's Cone's thesis? What is bothersome about what he says? What's he wrong or right about it? Where do you place his views in mainstream christian, and other, intellectual traditions?

He now cannot go back and rewrite that part of his background. It is up to the voters to decide if they want such a person as their President.

That's such a vacuous statement. More of the wink wink stuff that you professional political agents engage in. The standard principles of smear. Can you be specific in saying why going to that church means Obama endorses anything Wright stands for? What is the risk to America and the presidency that Obama has that history?

It should be obvious that there is none of substance because I am yet to hear it and I keep asking.

You tell us.

James Cone's book is one of the things that informed Jeremiah Wright's view of the world. A major thing, no doubt. It is fair to say that Cone's late 60's early 70's black nationalist rhetoric is dated in the eyes of most Americans, including some/many black Americans. But the key, and reason Cone is relevant to this is because Cone was not irrelevant to Wright or TUCC. Cone's racializing of religion is evident throughout everything we see in TUCC and Rev. Wright.

What do you think of Martin Luther King?

What is the risk to America and the presidency that Obama has that history?

Is only Barack Obama allowed to be a member of a racially divisive, racially separatist church, or are all of the candidates?

What do you think of Martin Luther King?

He's still dead.

Wheel

He's still dead.

Well, lets hope so - or we might all soon be zombie cuisine.

He's still dead.

The "best" civil rights leaders usually are. Because then you can just project your own beliefs on them even if they are completely opposite and they can't do anything about it.

[/snark]

Agreed ... I was hoping we'd finally have a president that was willing to defend the truth about 9/11 that it is in fact a direct result of our foreign policy in the Middle East. This is also Ron Paul's view.

I was hoping we'd finally have a president that was willing to defend the truth about 9/11 that it is in fact a direct result of our foreign policy in the Middle East

No no no... 9/11 was not the result of American foreign policy -- it was Al Qaeda's response to our military presence in Saudi Arabia and support of Israel. I know it seems like splitting hairs, but that wouldn't be necessary if not for the implication from the phrasing of the "chickens coming home to roost" statement is that we directly caused 9/11.

I know it seems like splitting hairs,

That's because it is.

Our chickens did come home to roost. That metaphor is spot on. A lot of people don't want to hear that. It even makes them angry to hear it. However, I feel no need to tiptoe around crybabies and moral cowards.

These people that quote the snippets of the sermon have never actually seen the whole sermon.

Wright was quoting what some one said on FOX news the day after 9-11.

People should actually have to watch the sermon in its entirety before they comment. It just makes them sound stupid when they don't.

Entelechy-9.3.....I agree...the metaphor is spot on. When I first heard the sound bite my thoughts went back to my initial feelings right after 9/11. I knew OBL declared war against the US and Clinton had a "missile diplomacy" where he shot off cruise missiles every now & then thus I felt sure that we would get some reaction at some point. The surprise to me was the size & scope of 9/11 and the results of same.

Wright was quoting what some one said on FOX news the day after 9-11.

Actually no, he wasn't. He was paraphrasing what Ambassador Peck said, or was interpreted as saying. Go watch the sermon and Peck's interview.. In the sermon itself, Wright attributed the "chickens coming home to roost" quote to Malcolm X, not to Peck.

I find it interesting that many posters seem to take the fact that Al Queda's attacks on the USA are because of our foreign policy as some sort of vindication for Al Queda, or denigration of the USA.

That makes no sense. I especially love this statement by Entelechy:

Our chickens did come home to roost. That metaphor is spot on. A lot of people don't want to hear that. It even makes them angry to hear it. However, I feel no need to tiptoe around crybabies and moral cowards.

So, if I catch your drift, you were prefer that we, as a country, kow tow to terrorists and other fringe and radical religious groups so there would never be a chance that our "chickens" would come home to roost?

Hmmm, seems to me that is moral, political, and every other form of cowardice. Are you suggesting that we kowtow to anyone who threatens us, or may threaten us, or thinks of threatening us so that our chickens won't come home to roost?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

or if you prefer:

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

A discussion of the etymology of the Burke quotation

If you believe that the Taliban, Al Queda, and the like are good, then do nothing for doing nothing will surely allow them to prevail. They will fight, they will commit terror, no matter if we are in Saudi Arabia or not for their goal is more overarching than a mere withdrawal of our troops from the ME, or the destruction of Israel.

And because they will fight, unfortunately, so must we. It is a moral imperative. The methods may be argued, but the need is indisputable.

So, if I catch your drift, you were prefer that we, as a country, kow tow to terrorists and other fringe and radical religious groups so there would never be a chance that our "chickens" would come home to roost?

It's not about kow-towing.

Let me try a story. When I was growing up in Austin, TX, we had a few different kinds of ants that lived in the area. The most prominent kind of ants were little black ants that were perfectly benign. One could go around and stick a hand in the mounds of these ants and let them crawl over you, and they wouldn't bite. I don't think they could bite. Being a curious kid, I did this kind of thing a lot.

When I was around five or six, fire ants finally made their way up through Mexico from Central America to Central Texas. A lot of kids learned that summer not to play with ants anymore, including me.

Sometimes a country can go around meddling in the affairs of others, and there will be no consequences. Sometimes that meddling is even appreciated. But when you go around stirring up the mounds of fire ants, don't be surprised when you end up with hands and ankles full of venom.

Spiffie:

I am afraid your analogy breaks down significantly when the intelligent goal of the fire ants is to destroy/ruin/kill your house, your wife, your children, and to completely change your way of life to what they, the fire ants, think is appropriate.

In that instance, I believe you would act intelligently, and spray your lawn with Fire Ant Killer

We actually used Diazinon, but only on our own lawn. We didn't walk around the neighborhood sprinkling it around, ya know?

I find it interesting that many posters seem to take the fact that Al Queda's attacks on the USA are because of our foreign policy as some sort of vindication for Al Queda, or denigration of the USA.

I don't think Al Queda is vindicated, because two wrongs do not make a right. I also don't think "we" deserved 9/11, because most of the people who died then had very little to do with our actual foreign policy.

However, I do think our foreign policy has not been conducted with the best of intentions at all times, nor has it always promoted good. We have messed with other nations and other people, particularly in the Middle East (and Latin America as well). Much of that in the past was in the name of the Cold War, because dictatorships or not, we needed as many allies as possible. One can argue whether that was a good policy or not, but it's in the past and the Cold War is over. At this point I look at what's the best course for the future, and I think that involves a far more hands off foreign policy.

Al Queda already exists, and I don't think that just leaving them alone will all of a sudden fix everything and make them stop attacking us. However, a far less interventionist foreign policy will go a long way towards not making more Al Queda's, so that when the current group dies off, no one will replace them.

Adam:

Our foreign policy should be conducted to benefit this Country and, in my opinion (not widely held, by the way) for humanitarian purposes.

I do agree that we should become far less interventionist. However, given there is no other country in the world really willing to act in the face of horrific events (see Sudan, etc., etc) and the UN is just a fricking joke, what's a democracy to do?

So, if I catch your drift, you were prefer that we, as a country, kow tow to terrorists and other fringe and radical religious groups so there would never be a chance that our "chickens" would come home to roost?

Well, if you're asking this question, you obviously don't get my drift. There wouldn't be any terrorists for us to be concerned with if we hadn't been so involved in Middle Eastern affairs. You act as if Al Qaeda just sprang into being without any historical context. And now that they do exist you refuse to consider the events that brought them to be and support a policy that will only create more of these monsters.

They will fight, they will commit terror, no matter if we are in Saudi Arabia or not for their goal is more overarching than a mere withdrawal of our troops from the ME, or the destruction of Israel.

Even assuming this nonsense were true, which it isn't, this would only justify violence against members of Al Qaeda. How exactly does one get from there to justifying the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

However, given there is no other country in the world really willing to act in the face of horrific events (see Sudan, etc., etc) and the UN is just a fricking joke, what's a democracy to do?

Take up the White Man's burden,
The savage wars of peace . . .

You're not describing a democracy, you're describing an empire.

Possibly true, but not from a church leader. He said "God damn America" and he meant "God damn America."

Yeah, as a play on God Bless America.

I stubbed my toe last night.

God damn chair.

God damn chair.

dang it Dennis, now I have to denounce you and disown you as my newsvine friend in clear and no uncertain terms or else people who are convinced that I hate chairs anyway and nothing I can do or say will change their minds are gonna say I haven't done enough to heal the divide between humans and chairs.

Dude, you should go to The Bahamas for a while till this thing cools down...

It's my favorite chair, too.

Dude, you should go to The Bahamas for a while till this thing cools down...

If I damn the sofa too, can I stay longer?

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America! That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizen as less than human. God damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!

My emphasis.

Will God damn America for its arrogance when it invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq? Could it be why it has not been a "cake walk" or why Cheney and Bush were not greeted as "liberators" or why the original cost projection of $40 billion is more than ten times that amount?

Some folks will say look at all the natural disasters happening in America. Why there was even an earthquake in Ilinois last week. Could this be God's wrath upon America. The fire and brimstone preachers will agree upon God's wrath upon America.

Just curious...

Adam, I'd love to agree, but we both know that if he didn't everyone and his cousin's ferret would be going on about Obama not renouncing his pastor's latest incendiary remarks. Sometimes moving pre-emptively can be good.

Obama timing was just fine because the pastor left him with no choice. He proved that he is someone that is not easily influenced by the outside to throw someone under the bus because it would be politically easier. What Obama did today was very difficult because I am sure he has love for Rev. Wright. Sometimes when you love someone you tend to give them the benefit of the doubt but Wrights words just became too much and was in opposition of Obama belief. Those that hate on Obama will not care about the denouncing of Rev. Wrights words because they're looking for any reason to spew hate about Obama anyway.

Sometimes moving pre-emptively can be good.

I think that is true, it's just rather than replying to each and every point of Wright's, I'd rather Obama just say something like "While I respect Reverend Wright and we have a long past, his opinions and views are his own, as are mine." And then be done with it.

And I know many people would never let it rest at that, and Obama would constantly be attacked, but those are the people who would never have voted for him anyway. The people with open minds I think will respect that position and be willing to listen to Obama's actual message and judge him on that.

The problem with responding to Wright every single time he speaks is that his campaign becomes defensive rather than positive, his message is lost and he keep Wright in the spotlight because people will know that every time Wright speaks Obama will respond.

It will be very hard to ignore Wright at first, but in doing so he will help his campaign in the future.

Valid points all, except you've missed one crucial point, which forms the crux of my argument. The ones who keep questioning Obama will be the ones the dittobots hear most--Republican-controlled media. When Average Joe American always hears Obama being questioned on Wright, he's gonna reach the conclusion that Obama needs to do something that he hasn't yet done.

He/Average Joe meant gender-neutrally, of course.

Republican-controlled media.

I'm sorry, but the Republicans don't control the media any more than the Democrats do, even Fox News. The media loves ratings and controversy brings ratings. The media plays up Wright not because they want Obama to fail, but because it gets people to tune in.

And that. :)

Andrew 19.0 - yes, as I recall it was just last week that Killfile (among many others) was defending Rev Wright's patriotism with a front page seed.

Yes, Lisa, Wright served. While Cheney was looking for any deferment he could find and Bush using his daddy's coattails to take a cush position.

Yeah, I know your response: "Clinton!" But he followed his convictions and was willing to be arrested for his actions. Much like my own former president of the Orange County SDS and draft-dodger father. My father had death threats and all sorts of ugliness from Orange County conservatives. Blech.

Lisaed regardless of what Wright has said and done he did serve this country in two different branches of the armed services. I seeded the article long before Killfile did because I wanted to know just what kind of background Reverend Wright came from. He did not have to serve he CHOSE to serve. Everybody else gets a thank you for your service while Wright gets a swift kick in the arse. So patriotic you Americans.

When my father served this country, he served in a segregated Air Force and he put his age up to do it. What would you all know about or care about the experience of a negro soldier? We see how you all have treated this former Marine and Navy vet--this country can just make you sooooo proud sometimes.

And the double standard continues...

Actually Jones Girl,

I would have said McVeigh, not Clinton.

1988, he enlisted in the U.S. Army.[5] He was a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served in the Gulf War, where he was awarded a Bronze Star. He had been a top scoring gunner with the 25mm cannon of the light-armored Bradley Fighting Vehicles used by the U.S. 1st Infantry Division to which he was assigned. He served at Fort Riley, Kansas, before Operation Desert Storm. At Fort Riley, McVeigh completed the Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).

McVeigh wanted to join the Green Berets, the Army's elite special forces. After returning from The Gulf War, he entered the program for training to become a Green Beret, but dropped out after the second day of an early phase due to blisters from new boots sustained during a 5-mile march. Afterwards, McVeigh decided to leave the Army entirely, and was discharged on December 31, 1991.[6]

McVeigh was given his final honorable discharge from the Army reserve in May, 1992.

Whether you serve, or don't, is not really an issue now is it? Frankly, this fact cost Kerry the presidency. His handlers believed his military service was one of his tickets to the White House, but his post military actions was his ticket out of town.

Be honest, wmo. It was the Right's smearing and lies about Kerry's service and thereafter that cost Kerry the presidency.

Comparing Wright to McVeigh is a sign of RW desperation.

Jones Girl:

Be honest, wmo. It was the Right's smearing and lies about Kerry's service and thereafter that cost Kerry the presidency.

You can't be lying about something when you show it on videotape. The "right" (whatever that is) had all the ammunition they needed to bury Kerry when Kerry made his military service such a huge issue in the election. It was a blunder by Kerry's handlers, which was abundantly taken advantage of by the "right," (to use your term.)

My only point re: Wright and McVeigh was to point out that military service is not, really, an absolute indicator of love for one's Country or government.

I am of the mind (wish more folks were) which is expressed in a bumper sticker on my wife's car "I love my Country, but fear my government."

All should be of this belief as governments always move to consolidate more and more power within themselves so as to increase the individual power of those who make up the decision makers in the government.

So it has always been. All true lovers of democracy, freedom, should work day in day out to limit the government.

Videotape can be taken out of context and was by the swiftboaters.

If you are really for limiting the government, you should hate, hate today's repubs, with the Patriot Act, starting wars, invading a woman's right to choose and trying to decree who should and shouldn't receive a civil marriage license, demanding voter IDs and so on...

Or perhaps that may be because Obama supporters are so self important they think they are better than everyone and no one can stand them...

Generally it's not a good strategy to insult those you need to convert to your cause.

Or perhaps that may be because Obama supporters are so self important they think they are better than everyone

Oh, come on, Adam. We never said we were better than everyone.

Just better than most. ;-)

Just better than most. ;-)

Yeah, you guys can't even begin to imagine how much better us Ron Paul supporters are than all of you ;-)

Better at sustaining a delusion, that is.

Ron Paul is my congressman---don't get me started.

You won't like what you hear.

Didn't Ron say during a debate that the USA was partly to blame for 9/11 because of our presence in the Middle East? Didn't hear any blow back about that. Wonder why...

Gee....3 guesses?

1st 2 don't count.

and don't forget the all important: "is Obama black enough to be the first black president?" issue that hasn't been resolved, Darro.

I mean, all that other stuff can come later AFTER he's the first black president...

Wouldn't it be scary if we had a black president? Like coal black, features indistinguishable. Black as in black. Or a white one. A chalk white would be funny too.

As far as I can tell we have a man with moderately darker brown skin color than my beige running for office.

I say revise greck's issue, then. Should a man with moderately darker brown skin be President?

Thats still just as (in)valid. ;)

nah, then he just wouldn't be moderately brown enough to be the first moderately brown president.

-His name's bill richardson, by the way.

Some how I ended up reading some political history tonight, --I know, God help me,--and what I discovered was that Bill Clinton used the same tactics in 1992. Almost down to a T.

Class division--called Quayle 'elite' etc. God help us if they get back in office. An entire generation is reaching middle age who has never had a chance to vote for any presidential candidate without a Bush or Clinton on the ticket.

OBAMA 08 and 12.

He is correct--we are the ones we have been waiting for. I thought that long before he said it.

njb I seeded an article about the problems Bill Clinton was having in 1992 with the super delegates and the campaign tactics used against Bill that they are now using against Obama. The Clintons are certainly not the ones we have been waiting for.

Oh I agree! Could they just go back to whatever state they are from? Fast.

Yes we have forgotten something that never happened.

It happened. There are pictures that can be found if you Google them. As well, Bill Clinton gave him a commendation for his "spiritual leadership" Check it out. And...while Hillary brings up Bill Ayers, she was defending the Black Panthers and other revolutionaries in the 60's and 70's. What a hypocrite! In fact, she was in Chicago for 3 days during the 1968 Democratic convention riots with Abby Hoffman and those guys. Don't we all have things we've done when we're young that maybe we would not do today? Not if you have selective memory like the Clintons. I think it's age. While I'm 64, I don't think we need folks like me leading the country. The memory goes after 55! Obama 08!

Yes we have forgotten something that never happened.

Ha! Not been paying attention?

It's just another reason that Rev. Wright is a non-issue to free-thinkers.

It happened. There are pictures that can be found if you Google them. As well, Bill Clinton gave him a commendation for his "spiritual leadership" Check it out. And...while Hillary brings up Bill Ayers, she was defending the Black Panthers and other revolutionaries in the 60's and 70's. What a hypocrite! In fact, she was in Chicago for 3 days during the 1968 Democratic convention riots with Abby Hoffman and those guys. Don't we all have things we've done when we're young that maybe we would not do today? Not if you have selective memory like the Clintons. I think it's age. While I'm 64, I don't think we need folks like me leading the country. The memory goes after 55! Obama 08!

SteveHouse

Yes we have forgotten something that never happened.

Ha! Not been paying attention?

It's just another reason that Rev. Wright is a non-issue to free-thinkers.

This (Democratic) election is based on intangibles. These two candidates vote the same in the Senate 95% of the time. There simply is no compelling ideological or policy difference between them. Yet we have the left screeching for the 6 months, slandering Hillary Clinton, inventing all sorts of lies and gimmicks to discredit and demonize her. Why?

The main reason was supposed to be that Obama was a transcendent and transformational politician . Current events completely belie that. He threw Wright under the bus out of political expediency. Now, it was unavoidable, and it was a dilemna for Obama, because I think he did , or does , whatever, still consider Wright a friend. But what has brought Obama to this point?

The political expediency of maintaining membership in a highly questionable (to say the least) church for many many years as he built up his political base, and then the political necessity to repeatedly lie about the extent of his knowledge of Wright after the pulpit videos became public.

Obama is a 'new' politician more in people's imagination than in reality.

So why not Clinton? Why not Edwards? Why not Biden? Dodd? Any of them? Why at long last, the Obama mania. There is no longer any good answer to this question.

It happened. There are pictures that can be found if you Google them. As well, Bill Clinton gave him a commendation for his "spiritual leadership" Check it out.

Please. Don't embarrass yourself. Wright appeared at the White House at an event that was attended by dozens of preachers from around the country. It means nothing in the current context.

I think he made the only valid choice available and did what he had to do.

If he'd done this the first time, he wouldn't be having to deal with it now. It's a case of too little too late.