Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Bear Stearns Bust | Main | Maybe In The Next Spin Cycle... »

March 17, 2008

Comments

Jane

What I can't reconcile is the idea that on some Sundays when Obama was in town, Reverend Wright was all sweetness and reconciliation, but whenever Barack was absent he suddenly turned into a raving lunatic. If it was Barack's presence alone that transformed Wright's temperament, well that Messiah thing might be well earned. But what good is it if it only works with Obama in the room?

There really is no need to disprove what BO said. No one believes him anyway.

abomb

One thing we do know. The Obamas have been big donors to this hateful church...more than $22,000 in 2006 according to their federal tax
returns. See link: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/obama_2006_tax_return.pdf
Why hasn't more been made of this?

sqlserver

author of the article is posting over at Free Republic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1986607/posts?q=1&;page=1#1

clarice

Time Zone difference--and direct flight makes it possible, I suppose. I find NEwsmax too careless about detail and too stinting of sourcing to ever use.

fdcol63

Far from being the "transcendant" racial figure that he claims to be, Obama is still mired in the racial hate and radicalism of the 1960's .... just like Wright, his self-professed "spiritual advisor".

As Mark Steyn says in NRO's The Corner, one has to wonder why Obama sought out this particular church and this particular pastor, and why he has mired himself in this 1960's perspective:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmYyYTViNDA0ODYwYWE4ZjM3N2Y0ZWViYTM1NGMwOGU=

"... One understands why that might not seem obvious to black people of a certain age: Condi Rice, for example, has childhood memories of a segregated south and racial violence. But that's what makes Obama's association with Wright so significant. He's not from Alabama. He's a biracial middle-class Kenyan-Kansan Hawaiian-born Indonesian-raised Columbia and Harvard graduate who chose to immerse himself in the most corrosive and paranoid end of a racial-grievance ghetto mentality that is nothing to do with him, his family or his upbringing. He doesn't have the same excuse as a Jackson, Sharpton or Farrakhan."

Was it simply to gain "street cred" with Chicago voters? Did Obama ever share these views? Did Wright's considerable influence as "spiritual advisor" somehow "enlighten" Obama about his status as an oppressed African-American male in a "God Damn(ed) America" ruled by rich white European males?

Based on the congregation's reactions to Wright's venomous rantings, they were not suprised at all by his comments and most appear to agree enthusiastically with them.

It's simply not credible that Obama was as unaware of his "spritual advisor's" most inner held beliefs as he would have us to believe now.

And quite frankly, Obama insults our intelligence by now claiming that he does not himself share them today.

Change? Sure. Obama will take us right back to the racial hatred and radicalism of the 1960's despite our best efforts to move past them.

sqlserver

From FreeRepublic:


My article was published in the first week of August. Everyone's memory was still fresh. I still had all of my notes. There hadn't been a lot of time to doctor or edit any videos or websites. But the Obama camp chose to remain silent at that time. I have repeatedly called the campaign and the church, asking for an interview and mentioning the July 22 date in the messages I've left.

If Obama wasn't there, they should have spoken up right away -- immediately after the article was published. I'd bring in my notes, they'd produce their videotape, and we would get everything cleared up right away. I stand behind my story, but if I was wrong, Newsmax would have published a retraction and that would have been the end of it.

Now, after everyone's memory has faded, my notes have been taken to some landfill and there has been plenty of time to doctor the videos and the websites, the Obama campaign tries to deny he was there? They could have nipped this little problem in the bud if Obama really was not there, and they had chosen to speak up.

I think they are relying on the fact that people have fading memories about who gave the sermon in the early morning and who gave it in the evening, on a Sunday eight months ago.

BumperStickerist

At the risk of being right, the role that the black woman traditionally plays in the religious life of her family is being overlooked in the Obama's situation.

My guess is that Rev. Wright's message apeals Michelle Obama and, as such, Obama found himself attending those services.

Absent a compelling reason for Obama to angry up the Missus by refusing to attend Rev. Wright's services - lousy music, bad coffee for coffee hour - I can understand his attending services for 20 years in that particular church.

I'm guessing that Barack's defenders aren't going to start saying that women have a PromiseKeeper's approved-role role in historically Black congregations.

-

-

J. Peden

Barack spoke that Sunday to a La Raza rally in Miami.

With a "break" like that, who needs bad luck?

12thman

This is mainly in response to fdcol63. What most people aren't factoring in is Obama's wife. A high percentage of men are funnelled into religion choices by the women they are with.

While the Church's general attitude doesn't seem to mesh with Obama, it certainly fits his wife's temperment.

Sue

How long have the Obamas been married? Obama has been with Wright for 20 years. I thought I heard he had been married for 15. Anyone know?

Sue

The Obamas married on October 8, 1992. Obama's attendance at that church pre-dates his wife. Seems he turned her on to Rev. Wright, not the other way around.

Sue

They met in 1989. Still doesn't work. Obama was going to that church before he met Michelle.

Pofarmer

Obama's attendance at that church pre-dates his wife. Seems he turned her on to Rev. Wright, not the other way around.

There goes that meme, Ker-Plunk.

I love it.

clarice

Well the Obamabots are working right out of the playbook which predicted the next line of defense would be his wife makes him go to church and picked out the one they'd attend.

These swarms of foolish defenders are a sign that we are right, this is a mortal blow...or a least much more than a mere scratch.

J. Peden

Obama has been with Wright for 20 years.

I believe Obama claimed he'd been part of Wright's Church since ~ "around 1992-3" in Major Garret's interview.

Jane

I find the idea that BO went to that church specifically to enhance his political stature somewhat credible. At least that is the most innocent explanation of a whole lot of bad ones. That would indicate he never planned to be a national candidate, since that church may give him street cred in Chicago but certainly hurts in the heartland. It also shows he's not as good of a pol as people once thought.

Or we could go with the whole "he's an America hating racist" meme.

clarice

I think it's pretty obvious that he joined and curried favor with Wright because he is a powerful political force on Chicago's South side where Obama was working as an organizer and planned, and did, run for office.

So--that makes him a very ordinary political opportunist. That he is and that his views are not well defined and reflective of a far left point of view, now makes him exceedingly vulnerable. Because the media covered this up for so long, they now stick their favorite party with a deeply flawed candidate who has the most elected delegates and little chance to dump him without losing a significant part of their support.

"Reporting for duty" again they are.
Listen, when a friend has spinach hanging off his canine teeth, you tell him.

Porchlight

I believe Obama claimed he'd been part of Wright's Church since ~ "around 1992-3" in Major Garret's interview.

According to Dreams From My Father Obama first met Wright in 1985, and according to this Chicago Tribune story he "responded to one of Wright's altar calls" in 1988.

I think he was baptized by Wright around that time as well. So "a twenty year relationship" doesn't necessarily translate into 20 years of regular attendance at TUCC.

Sue

But he didn't meet Michelle until 1989. Obama 's and Wright's relationship is not a result of Michelle.

fdcol63

Whatever brought Obama to this church and pastor, it's just implausible to me that he could sit through 20 years of sermons by Wright - even with irregular attendance - and NOT be influenced or impacted in some way by Wright's political and spritual ideology.

anduril

Here's a WSJ article analyzing the Catholic vote: Candidates Court Catholics. I won't quote from it, but it's interesting. If the economy is a big factor in the fall, this could be important. McCain needs to attract some of these people--they're far too big a demographic to do without. Right now I see a fluid electoral situation--the issues could change in the months ahead.

J. Peden

Whatever, they do make such a nice threesome, don't you think.

Sue

I can't remember where I heard this, but Obama didn't bring up his pastor until he needed Christian credentials. Rumors were flying he was a Muslim. To counter them, he started talking about his Christian minister.

Sue

I agree that Michelle took to Wright like a duck to water.

anduril

OT

From the Chicago Tribune--but not Obama related:

Saudi wields British law against U.S. author:
Billionaire leverages harsher libel rules to suppress unflattering book

J. Peden

For sure ain't none of them ever gonna fly over no Cukoo's Nest.

anduril

Rezko, Wright, and Alinsky: Three Aspects of Obama's Chicago

Don't miss Steve Sailer's article today: Rezko and Wright: The Two Sides of Obama's Chicago

Operative quote: "In summary, Obama came to the Chicago to do good, but ended up doing well."

clarice

Spengler explains black liberation theology for us and details why it is uniquely inconsistent with American Christian thought. Spengler notes that historically, racially based theology,a feature in other countries, is "a greased chute to to the nether regions."

He concedes that Obama has been an active and long time participant in Wright's chruch for political conveniece, conluding:"

It is possible that because of the Wright affair Obama will suffer for what he pretended to be, rather than for what he really is. "

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

clarice

**convenience**

anduril

A different take on Wright: Brazile: 'Wright One of the More Moderate Black Preachers'. Does make you wonder what the radicals are like. But she has a point: anyone who thinks his words don't resonate widely is smoking something that ain't legal.

Thomas Collins

What did B_O say at the LaRaza rally? That could be more interesting than what Rev. Wright has said in his sermons.

BumperStickerist

Well, being reality-driven, I sit corrected regarding the Missus.

I guess that leaves us with one fewer reason to not think of Barack as being a simple church-attending bobblehead.

Strong. Tough.

-

fdcol63

" ... anyone who thinks his words don't resonate widely is smoking something that ain't legal."

Just how widely is the critical issue, here.

If it's enough to secure the White House, it's not the America I want to continue to live in.

The problem is that for Americans like me, there are very few other places to go. Everywhere else is either socialistic Europe, Europe-lite, Muslim, or soon-to-be Chinese.

Jane

Interesting interview with Obama about the Rezko relationship -

I'm only about half way thru and so far it's just Obama spinning. Given what we have seen in the past it is interesting to read between the lines.

clarice

Beyond Spin
Jennifer Rubin - 03.16.2008 - 17:25
The ABC This Week’s roundtable (running the political gamut from George Will to Donna Brazile) was unanimous on several points: Reverend Wright is a significant problem for Barack Obama, the Democrats are in a bloody war (Brazile says so bloody not even “bleach” can remove it) and Hillary Clinton’s chances for the nomination rest on her ability to demonstrate that Obama is unelectable in the general election. All of this is complicated, they reminded us, by rules crafted so oddly as to prevent a decisive winner. As George Will put it, the Democrats have gone from “an embarrassment of riches to an embarrassment.”

Many conservatives may be concerned that somehow the liberal media will sweep the last couple of days’ events under the rug and Obama will sail on. As exemplified by the ABC panel, I see no substantial risk of this happening. Once Americans saw and heard Wright’s remarks, we went beyond the ability of even the most dogged partisans in the media to spin it in a way that would extract their favored candidate from the predicament he is in.

This is not an extraneous point of policy or something beyond the ability of average people to assess. Millions of voters go to church and synagogue and don’t hear this sort of venomous talk, and would leave if they did. Everyone can ask themselves: If he went to Wright’s church for 20 years, how likely is it that he heard this stuff, and what does his continued attendance say about him? It simply isn’t possible to wish it all away and hope voters don’t notice.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/2970

jimmyk

Time Zone difference--and direct flight makes it possible

No, the time zone goes the wrong way--it's later in Miami than Chicago.

I just wish this stuff had hit the fan after Obama got the nomination. Now we'll either be stuck with RW, or with an Obama who's stronger for having survived all this.

Jane

WEll after reading that Trib interview, the whole slogan about Obama having "judgment" really goes out the window.

He's toast.

Benson

Ambinder has little room for criticizing others for citing inaccurate reports.

Here he is on the Washington Post claiming Petraeus said something he didn't say.

"Remember: the surge was supposed to lead to stability... and help rebuild civil society... all of which would lead to national reconciliation. All interwoven, all crucial. The surge was -- never was -- solely about security.

So -- isn't this an admission of ..."

He proceeds to quote the WaPo article, which MNF-I released a press release saying is false and Petraeus never said.

No correction that I can see.

clarice

jimmy, right you are! Forgive my space/time challenged thinking.

Appalled Moderate

TM:

There is a three paragraph context to Kristol's statement.

For one thing, it’s becoming clear that Obama has been less than candid in addressing his relationship to his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. For example, Obama claimed Friday that “the statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity.”

It certainly could be the case that Obama personally didn’t hear Wright’s 2003 sermon when he proclaimed: “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 our citizens as less than human.”

But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

I think Kristol is using the Newsmax story as evidence prejudicial to his assertion that "It’s becoming clear that Obama that less than candid in addressing his relationship to his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr." And, indeed, without that Nesmax story, he has no basis for his "becoming clear" line. All he has i that Obama's explanation is that the "pretense is hard to sustain".

So where do I stand?

Kristol did commit the factcheck error noted by Armbinder and Sullivan, and that knocks the foundation out of a key assertion of Kristol's.

But the fact remains, Obama's pretense is hard to sustain. Something a little more honest would have been nice from him. Instead, we got the standard "holy %^&, I've been caught!" distancing a politician will do when an associate of long standing embarassing beliefs gets exposed.

PrestoPundit

I don't buy the expediency defense. Obama himself tells us that he spent his college years surrounded by a self-selected group into "conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism". You can look it up in his autobiography.

He seems also to have been around a lot of that growing up with his "fellow traveler" mother, and her often anti-American and far left friends. (Obama's mother's best friend from high school is the one who described the woman as a "fellow traveller" in her politics.)

Enough projection -- Obama doesn't have the same education and view of the world as your typical conservative America. He comes out of a far-left anti-white, anti-American atmosphere, and it's fantasy to think he's a completely different view of the world than did all of his far left peers and mentors and teachers.

And in my experiece in college and grad school, most of these lefties never read a newspaper, and if they did read anything it was The Nation and the New York Review of Book, i.e. far left crap.

They weren't well educated, they were posers with a lot of multicultural crap under their belts, a lot of post modernism and almost no history, absolutely no economics, and nothing that my 8th grade educated, newspaper reading grandfather would have considered knowledge of the world.

Cecil Turner

But the fact remains, Obama's pretense is hard to sustain.

Man, I'm glad you got there. Because while I'm not sure this is all that big a deal, the idea that someone can sit in the pew for more than a decade and not notice the tone of the sermons is hard to take. (Even if the motivational tapes hadn't been the subject of a fawning NY Times piece.) Not sure I'm buying the feasibility of the immaculate connection travel theory--even if it were possible, doesn't look like something a travel agent would plan--but neither does it appear to be relevant. (Nor would it be a particularly telling "gotcha" if it were proved . . . it's only one sermon.) In fact, I think Wright's old war questionnaire is a better indicator . . . and the idea that Obama didn't know of his pastor's political predilections is . . . preposterous.

MikeS

Though Obama's church was a place that taught anti-Americanism and racism, it doesn't seem as bad as an extremist Wahhabi maddrassa or mosque. Besides, he probably didn't know what was going on there.

I'm sure Obama will unify the country the same way he has unified the Democratic Party.

WayneN

It's hilarious to watch how you people just sort of skated past NewsMax and Billy Kristol's lie about Obama's whereabouts. Hell, it's just a fact. Who cares about facts that get in the way, right, Republican nutcases?

clarice

Dear Wayne, close your eyes and pretend that the candidate belonged to a *whoa* country club that didn't admit Blacks. Now tell me what you'd say if he--a 20+ year member-- said he never noticed the fine print in the club rules or observed that only whites ever played the course.

GMax

No worse, he says he thought that blacks were in the club cuz they were always running around with bags on their back. That is the level of naivity it would take to believe the Obama story, he did not notice the bile for 1000 Sundays in a row. Caddie?

Tom Maguire

I don't buy the expediency defense. Obama himself tells us that he spent his college years surrounded by a self-selected group into "conspiracy-heavy anti-Americanism". You can look it up in his autobiography.

He seems also to have been around a lot of that growing up with his "fellow traveler" mother, and her often anti-American and far left friends.

Let's see - his mom would be a Nader-Kucinich Dem (unless the woman thing brought her to Hillary); his wife has never been proud to be an Ameeican, theinks we are mean, and that our souls are broken; his minister wants blacks to sing God Damn America; the National Journal ranks him "Most Liberal" and Poole has him in the left 20% of the Dem caucus (he was 10th or 11th); yet Obama is getting Republican support as a centrist.

When is it fair to blame the victim?

Wayne N

clarice (nice name) and GMax, once again you divert from the facts. Typical Republicans. When caught in one lie, search for another. It's the way you do things, because there is nothing you actually believe in.

DubiousD

Oprah attended the same church as Obama. She left the church years ago, presumably over her objections to the sermons of Rev. Wright.

Has anyone asked Oprah whether she heard the same rhetoric coming out of Wright's mouth -- and if she did, did she recall seeing Obama in the pews that day?

clarice

Dear Wayne, I can't tell you how persuasive people find posters who pop in, dump talking points, and respond to decent debate with (perfectly stupid)ad homs.

kim

So Wayne N, what does Obama believe in? We, who are without faith, are desperate to know. Gad, I hope it's something good, like dessert.
=================================

MikeS

Wayne,
Tom's post puts two questions before us.

One question is about the quality of journalism. The other question is about the character of a candidate for the office of President.

On the journalism question, some guy at newsmax owes people who read and trust him an explanation as does Kristol.

On the question of the candidate's character, one day over the span of 23 years is not particularly indicative one way or another.

GMax

I really want to believe in "Change I can Believe In". Except its kinda tough when the guy hawking this, starts looking like a typical snake oil salesman. You do know that Rev Wright in a book he wrote, says about his time at the University that he grew to "hate Honkeys"? If not you are not well informed, if you did and just dismiss it, you just dont understand much about the average American.

And BTW, you anger is misplaces. Hills fingerprints are all over ABC's finally locking onto a story hiding from them in plain sight for well over a year. Just before Pennsylvania, and lots of blue collar white union members. HMMMM, prolly a coincidence.

Tom Maguire

It's hilarious to watch how you people just sort of skated past NewsMax and Billy Kristol's lie about Obama's whereabouts.

Geez, the Hilary writers abandon Kos, and the chickens come home to roost.

FWIW, other than on sports talk radio a "lie" is a material false statement which the presenter (speaker, writer, whatever) either knew to be false or made with reckless disregard as to its accuracy.

I suppose it is possible the NewsMax reporter realized his story lacked a certain 'oomph' unless Barack was in attendance, so he made something up.

It is also possible he got muddled on the dates, or that Barack attended the 7:30 AM service and was whisked by private plane to Miami.

Or it is possible that the NewsMax newsie saw exactly what he claims, but on July 15.

It takes a different mind than mine to sit around and know that the reporter is lying.

That said, I don't think this will ever be resolved - his latest is that he went to several services, although the story does not read that way. Which takes us where? If Barack admits he went to church on July 15, does that vindicate the NewsMax guy, who may (or may not) have also been there?

As to Kristol, the only way to argue he "lied" would be to claim a reckless disregard. Since he did cite a plausible source, that hardly flies.

And in further defense of Kristol, I don't think Barack's attendance at a specific sermon is material - Wright promoted a tone of racial division for twenty years, and yet Barack is running as the guy who wants us to move past those divisions. Does Barack want Wright to move past those divisions as wel, or is it just white folks that are expected to move on?

And if Barack has been exhorting his minister to move on, where is the progress?

And why is he raising his daughters with this anger and division?

Apparently this will all be answered in his big speech tomorrow night. As if.

Other Tom

Hi gang--posting from the road irginia) on a borrowed laptop.

Would there be any Secret Service records that would establish where he was all through the day? Are such record ever made available? FOIA request?

I'm in the group that thinks this is a very big deal that won't go away--the images of the preacher preaching are just too vivid and hard-hitting, and they are truly offensive to Joe and Jane Sixpack and to Reagan Democrats. But the delegate math is too inexorable to overcome, and if the supers give it to Hillary because this thing hurts him too much, it will still be seen as unforgivable theft by millions.

McCain wins in November.

clarice

Yes to all that, OT..I don't know about the secret service records--that is, I don't know if they are publicly accessible--but they should answer the question of Obama's whereabouts on a given day last year.

Other Tom

"(Virginia)"

clarice

I warned everyone my typing/proofreading disease was catching,OT.
What I meant above is that I do not know if the public has a right to view those secret service records. (I think this is rather like the public access to Cheney's visitor's log--how did that case turn out?)

Jane

Well flip that around. If BO wants to prove he wasn't there he can provide the secret service records. ANd if he refuses then the democrat ploy (he must be guilty) is perfectly played.

Jane

But actually, strategy wise I don't think that is necessary. No one will get past the tone of Rev Wrights sermons. No one will think he was all sweet and conciliatory on a different day. It simply doesn't pass the giggle test.

I wouldn't waste a minute proving Obama was "in the pew". Its enough that he was in the flock.

Just let that hang out there - that's enough. Anything more is overkill.

MayBee

I warned everyone my typing/proofreading disease was catching,OT.
What I meant above is that I do not know if the public has a right to view those secret service records.

I think the WH visitor logs had to be released (or at least, were released) in the wake of the ever-important Jeff Gannon scandal.

MTT

TM,

Tomorrow, Barack Hussein Obama, the soon-to-be Democratic Nominee for POTUS, will be giving a speech tomorrow about "race."

Although I am typically a thread-killer, I think it is fair to say that by next week not only will BHO have overcome his association with Rev. Wright, but he will be strengthened by it.

The Believers! and their proxies (LA Times, NY Times, CNN, CBS, etc.) have already launched full-throttle into a dizzying array of spin.

And although there remains some hope on the part of the folks at National Review On Line "He's Toast" allow me to yet again be the one to say, "not."

Not.

Black Theology or whatever you want to call it is a derivitave of the broader identity narrative of "terminal uniqueness."

"You just don't get it, because you don't know what it's like to be me."

See how easy that it is?

That's all Barack needs to do.

And his followers will MOVE ON.

They're good like that.

Unless it can be shown that Barack Hussein Obama himself said those things then this will soon be an ex-story.

You heard it here first.

Tomorrow's speech will seal the nomination for Barack.

Just sayin'.

C Watson

There is only one Wright sermon even remotely close to August 9th - when the article was written. The rest of the sermon slots are filled with other speakers.

The only Wright sermon according to the Church website happened on 6pm, July 22nd. But the guy who wrote the article says in his story that it was a morning service and describes it as such.

The Obama campaign has provided a copy of the flight leaving O’Hare for Miami at 8:50 am. There are multiple reports of Obama speaking in Miami around 1:30 pm. So the 11am service is impossible with the one hour time difference.

Since the writer was so sure to describe it as a morning service, let’s explore the timing if the Church’s records are somehow screwed up and Wright delivered the sermon for the 7:30am service:

7:30am Service starts showing Deacon Anthony Burnette delivering the 7:30 sermon on July 22
8:02am Obama starts walking out of the church in the middle of the service with his entourage of Secret Service agents (allow a three minutes for this) and staff
8:05am Obama’s vehicles leave Church parking lot headed for O’Hare Airport (35 minutes in light traffic)
8:40am Obama arrives at O’Hare, walks to flight gate, boards flight with entourage of Secret Service agents and staff
8:50am Jet for Miami leaves the gate per email from Obama campaign

Now one can bicker about those timings a little here or there (thought they leave no room for error) BUT it’s virtually unavoidable that Obama would have to get up in the middle of the service and walk out to catch his flight. The author of story couldn’t avoid reporting that fact if he saw it because it would lead to him wondering why Obama walked out. Therefore, I’m not buying the 7:30 am timing either.

I think the report of Obama being there in the morning of July 22 is either dishonest or grossly mistaken.

Wright delivered sermons on 32 Sunday’s since Obama announced his candidacy. I’m currently going through all those days. I’m not done but I can tell you that Obama wasn’t around much. Further, Obama had been working at his Federal Senate position in Washington since getting elected there. He commuted home when he could but his attendance at Church from the time that campaign started to the present time had to be very erratic since around 2003-2004.

GMax

Seal the nomination you say. No accounting for taste in the Democrat Party I would contend.

But there is still a small matter of the general election, is there not?

The profile for the Hill voters, older more rural white at least occasional church goer, is really gonna shine on "I hate Honkies?"

How about the Jewish contingent, who already had some strong misgivings about a guy with a terrorist sounding middle name, they are gonna be swell with a guy who sounds like Cynthia McKinney?

For now we will agree to most definitely disagree on this matter being quickly an exstory. Not the least of reasons is that Hill will not want it to become an ex story.

Other Tom

Disagree, MTT. No question he's the likely nominee, but nothing he says tomorrow (or anytime) is going to undo the damage the preacher has done. The vacant-eyed-zealots who faint at his rallies will continue to support him, but come November there are millions of non-primary voters who won't touch him with a ten-foot pole.

It's possible this will be clear to the superdelegates by convention time and that for that reason,they'll swing it for Hillary, but she'll have lost other millions of would-be Obama supporters in the process.

And the usual media suspects won't make a bit of difference, any more than they did in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 or 2004--and they're less influential now than ever.

Other Tom

Very doubtful to me that the guy would make that story up on August 9 when it could so readily have been proven false at the time. But I can't account for it...

It strikes me that the Newsmax story is a break for Obama. Withou it, he has a serious problem. But now a very tangential part of the story appears to be readily disprovable, and that's where he can focus his counterattack.

Sue

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

You know something, this from their http://www.tucc.org/about.htm>about us should be enough to make Obama not fit for president of the United States of America. Where are Obama's loyalties?

Rick Ballard

"Where are Obama's loyalties?"

Well, as Shakespeare put it: "To thine own self be true for it must follow as dost the night the day,
that canst then be false to any man." That's sort of a paraphrase but I believe it reflects BHO's basic ehical precepts.

boris

the Newsmax story is a break for Obama

Not if what the guy is preaching keeps getting more exposure.

Sue

New CNN poll. Obama 52/Hillary 45

boris

Bet people are starting to get skittish about appearing racist.

Sue

Bet CNN is working its magic for Obama.

Sue

This is just getting silly now.

The Obama campaign has just wrapped up a conference call with reporters. On the call, top Obama supporter Sen. Dick Durbin claimed that "many" of the controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright were made before Barack Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ. "Many of the quotes that have been disclosed publicly were made by Reverend Wright at a time before Barack Obama became part of his congregation and in places where Barack Obama was not even present," Durbin said. Later, asked about fallout from the Wright affair among Democrats, Durbin said, "Let me just say that the people I have spoken to understand, as I hope we all do, that to hold Sen. Obama accountable for speeches and sermons that were given before he joined the church is fundamentally unfair."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODJmZTEzMDA2MWI3OGU2Yjg4OGEzY2M3ZDIyN2FkNmE=>Byron York

Jane

I'll repeat my question since everyone seems to be hanging out here:

I have a question for those who saw the Obama interview with Major Garrett.

Garrett asked him if he would have quit the church if he heard the sermons by Wright.

Obama said: "If I heard them repeated, I would have quit."

What does the word "repeated" mean in that sentence? Repeated by whom? Does that mean he did hear them, but none of the parishioners whispered the same words in his ear? Is this the fallback position?

Oh and Dick Durbin is an idiot.

fdcol63

"...Many of the quotes that have been disclosed publicly were made by Reverend Wright at a time before Barack Obama became part of his congregation ..."

Sorry, Turban Durbin. The comments about "America's chickens coming home to roost", Bill riding Hillary, and "God Damn America" were made post-9/11.

Sue

This church has Sunday school for children. What are they teaching? Jesus loves me? Or Africa is the mother country?

fdcol63

Sorry ... that should have read Bill riding Monica.

He apparently was not riding Hillary. LOL

Sue

Why is no one asking Obama about a membership in a church that preaches that Africa is the mother country? What is the United States? Oh, yeah. God Damn Amerikka. I remember now.

fdcol63

Sue,

Not just that Africa is the "mother country", but:

4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

What exactly does "non-negotiable" mean? Would they, or any other American voter, accept a "non-negotiable" commitment to Israel, or Asia, or Europe?

Elliott

Jane,

I think the Obama campaign would say he meant, "If Wright had repeated such sentiments—which he made in sermons I didn't attend and with which I disagree—and I had heard him when he did this, I would have left."

Sue

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjE3YzcwNTQ5M2YwOTE1YWE0ZGZmYWEzMWI2N2YwZmM=>Byron York gets an answer.

I just asked the Obama campaign whether Sen. Dick Durbin was mistaken when he told reporters a couple of hours ago that, "Many of the quotes that have been disclosed publicly were made by Reverend Wright at a time before Barack Obama became part of his congregation…" and that, "the people I have spoken to understand, as I hope we all do, that to hold Sen. Obama accountable for speeches and sermons that were given before he joined the church is fundamentally unfair." I got back a one-word answer: Yes.


clarice

The worst thing--or one of the worst things--to do in a crisis like this is sending out various spokesmen who give clearly conflicting or erroneous messages.

GMax

Yes

Boy that is too funny. I wonder if it was a pregnant pause followed by a high C "Yes"?

Cant you just see some staffer, hanging up the phone and saying "damn that York guy is pretty dogged, we did not fool him."

Jane

I think the Obama campaign would say he meant, "If Wright had repeated such sentiments—which he made in sermons I didn't attend and with which I disagree—and I had heard him when he did this, I would have left."


I dunno, it kind of sounds like he knows he is gonna get caught, will pretend he said something to the reverend and warmed him to not repeat them. Of course I don't believe that for one second.

clarice

AT did a parsing of his statement and it's all b.s. like that, Jane. Taranto BOTW today cited it as the best deconstruction of that drivel.

fdcol63

2003-2008

Obama: "I remain opposed to the war in Iraq because I'm sure that, even though Saddam's Iraq is a very secretive, oppressive, and authoritarian regime, we could have known with a fair degree of certainty whether or not Saddam was continuing his WMD development programs if we had enough UN inspectors on the ground before we rushed back to war after 12 years and 17 UN Security Council resolutions."

"I am opposed to war with Iran for the same reasons."

2008

Obama: "Honestly, I had no idea that Pastor Wright, my spiritual advisor, whose sermons I've listened to fairly regularly for 20 years, who performed my marriage to Michelle and who baptized our daughters, has been saying such hateful and venomous things against America and white folks. I'm sure he only said such things when I wasn't there, because I would have surely told him how much I denounced such things if I'd heard them personally."

"Pardon me? Oh, no. Even though I was a member of the church all that time, I never surfed Trinity's website, or read the information posted there, or ever watched any of Pastor Wright's videotaped sermons there or on YouTube."

"Please rest assured that my judgment is sound."

centralcal

What in Heaven's name can Obama possibly say in his speech tomorrow to make this all go away?

The Obama website clean-up, the Church website clean-up, the disappearing You Tube videos all point to one thing - FEAR.

clarice

Juan Williams whose been very fair on this says Obama can only apologize..Rove says essentially the same thing though he says there are few options because it goes to his credibility and the key asset he had for his campaign.

clarice

***who's been very fair***

Elliott

Which statements is Obama disavowing? Has he made that clear?

hit and run

Clarice:
So--that makes him a very ordinary political opportunist.

Sorry, catching up.

Oh, I don't believe for one second that Obama is just an ordinary political opportunist.

Take everything that Obama lays out in his grandiose verbiage...hope, change, end of cynicism, heal racial division, reach across the aisle, end corruption, end special interests, new politics in Washington, etc, etc, etdamncetera.

And then match it up to his record, his actions, and the lack thereof. He believes and acts in the exact opposite manner of what he is selling.

It is not an ordinary political opportunist that could cast such a spell over so many people for so long.

Or one that could keep the spell working on so many people even after the revelations that have been brought to light in the last several weeks.

Obama's undoing has begun -- and I don't think it can be stopped at this point. But that does not mean that there will not remain a very, very large number of people committed to the idea that he is the change they've been waiting for.

No ordinary political opportunist.

Rick Ballard

"Has he made that clear?"

Certainly. He has specifically disavowed every single statement that has made you uncomfortable.

How could you ever ask for more?

Now, come. Let's all hold hands and belt out that famous Irving Berlin tune as only Kate Moss could. "God [bleep] America" is surely a song that should cause everyone to be diversely unified in hope for change.

Remember "we are the ones we've been waiting for!!!" ['cept whitey]

Porchlight

Juan Williams was great on Hannity this afternoon. He never let up on Obama. I think he still supports him but he is pretty disgusted and disappointed after this Wright mess.

clarice

Dick Morris (H & C) Barack has the nomination sewn up, superdelegates can't do anything about it, Barack will carry this baggage all the way into the November election.

Elliott

Hit and Run,

I saw your reading list. Right now, I'm reading "A Perfect Spy" and "Our Game," both by John Le Carre. Takeaway: Hit and Run, Jr. will grow up before I do.

hit and run

Heh, Elliott -- yeah, me too.

clarice

Very well put Hit..Smooooooooooooch

Jane

What in Heaven's name can Obama possibly say in his speech tomorrow to make this all go away?

He's gonna say it's our fault. We haven't worked hard enough to understand black people who have suffered so much that they can't possibly be held accountable for anything.

Jane

Clarice,

I think Morris is right, which makes this even more delicious. Obama will be the nominee and the party leaders will decide that he is unelectable and they have to throw it to Hillary. There will be blood in the street.

All the more reason for McCain to nominate Michael Steele.

hit and run

Clarice:
Dick Morris (H & C) Barack has the nomination sewn up, superdelegates can't do anything about it, Barack will carry this baggage all the way into the November election.

did you see this article in the NY Times Sunday?

And Patterico's take...

The New York Times tells of the Democrats’ amusing efforts to avoid an ugly showdown at the convention:

The delegates said they hoped to avoid being portrayed as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters. They spoke of having some power broker — the names mentioned included Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee; former Vice President Al Gore; and Speaker Nancy Pelosi — step in to forge a deal.

Yeah, that would be impossible to portray as party elites overturning the will of Democratic voters.

If I can put my Arlen Specter hat on here, perhaps what the Democrats need is not merely “superdelegates,” but a “super-DUPER delegate.” A super-duper delegate would be a single delegate who alone decides the nominee . . . and whose vote cannot be overturned by the other delegates, a majority of the electorate, the Supreme Court, or a vote of Congress.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame