onegoodmove

I think it's amazing how much scrutiny and tests a democratic candidate has to go through in order to be accepted by fellow democrats. Compare this to any republican candidate where, as soon as they're nominated, they have 100% republican support from the get go.

I think this is what makes the democratic party so great, and what kills us in elections. We definitely turn out the best and brightest candidates because of this, but the chances of them getting elected are far less when it comes down to it.

No republicans second guess Mccain anymore. He has a free ride from here to election. When democrats criticize Mccain, it's ignored because it's expected. Obama and Clinton get criticized by 100% of the republican party, naturally, and 80% of their own party. It really drives me nuts to say the least. I hope it's only for the good of our party in the end.

Dan L.

I must respectfully disagree, re: McCain. In PA, McCain got less than 75% of the vote. Over 10% went to Huckabee- even though he resigned from the race, and endorsed McCain, months ago. Needless to say, many in the GOP are weary of McCain, and several are loud critics.

That said, this Obama v. Hillary fiasco is really out of control. I hate to admit it, but I think JoAnn may be right when she says....shudder President McCain.

If forced to bet, my wager is that Obama will cinch the nomination within 45 days, but that we are headed into another 51/49 split come election time. Whoever wins, the margin of victory will be incredibly narrow.

Dan L.

I must respectfully disagree, re: McCain. In PA, McCain got less than 75% of the vote. Over 10% went to Huckabee- even though he resigned from the race, and endorsed McCain, months ago. Needless to say, many in the GOP are weary of McCain, and several are loud critics.

That said, this Obama v. Hillary fiasco is really out of control. I hate to admit it, but I think JoAnn may be right when she says....shudder President McCain.

If forced to bet, my wager is that Obama will cinch the nomination within 45 days, but that we are headed into another 51/49 split come election time. Whoever wins, the margin of victory will be incredibly narrow.

Step up Barack or you really will be unelectable.

He gave a 45 minute speech on this issue, one compared by many respectably commentators with speeches by JFK and MLK. You may not agree with those assessments, but whatever that speech was, it challenged the American voter to deal with an issue in terms of a nuanced argument.

I am shocked by the willingness of the left to deal in this kind of petty bullshit--and it is, petty bullshit. And not just to deal in it--to drag it on, through the shit. A pastor of McCain can apparently say bat-shit-crazy stuff about the end of the world, Israel, New Orleans being flooded because the wrath of the Good Lord, whatever.

Look, most of the things Wright said are, in fact, when placed in context of his sermons, things that have been said on this blog repeatedly, such as that U.S. foreign policy plays some role in fueling terrorism, and much else.

Moreover, everyone is willing to condemn Wright about his injudicious AIDS comment--and it was, I agree, injudicious--but NO ONE--NO ONE--has mentioned the Tuskegee Experiments. (My source here is NPR, but this is all well-documented, historical fact). Question: Question: Why would a well-educated black person who came of age during this period believe the U.S. government wanted black people to suffer debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases? Because through the 1970's, the U.S. government conducted studies on syphilis to learn about its effects if left untreated; the way they did this by letting infected black men enroll in their study, not letting them know their diagnosis, and leaving the disease untreated in order to study it's effects (among which, in late stages, are massive neurological damage and eventually death).

Again, I ask: Why would a well-educated black person who came of age during this period believe the U.S. government wanted black people to suffer debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases? Because--although his accusations are false about AIDS--they had done so before.

So we can talk about how nutty his remarks are; we can ignore that something exactly like what he says about AIDS, while false about AIDS, has indeed and in fact happened before in recent U.S. history; we on the left make our criticisms that current U.S. foreign policy is in part a cause of terrorism against us, but smugly condemn it when other-- black people, a black preacher says that: then it's "Anti-American" obviously!

Race is the one issue we don't want to touch in this country. So let me say it--what is the main reason why many white, rural, uneducated, lower class voters don't want to vote for Barack?--it's because the dude is BLACK.

Norm, did you watch the PBS special?

It airs here tonight, so I'm suspending judgment till I see it.

What video I've seen does show better context for what Wright said. Some of his stuff - yes - is not going to pass, like God damn America. But I think most Americans simply don't buy that Obama is responsible for the sermons he never heard.

Those that buy that aren't ever going to vote for Obama anyway.

Step up Barack or you really will be unelectable.

Why is it that this question is constantly asked — well, demanded — of Obama, but never of McCain? The hypocritical, bigoted televangelists he has embraced frequently say things that are far worse that what Wright ever said.

Hillary's camp are just as odious as Bush's -- and her supporters are starting to sound just as bad as his.

i watched this pastor's whole speech, not just the excerpts. what he said was fair and reasonable. he's not a nut. the united states has historically often been unfair and unreasonable, murderous and racist. that's commonly understood, so why is it an issue when one individual points it out? obama's not a political chameleon. you want one? there's plenty available. liberals or progressives who address this manufactured controversy as though it were anything but a complete BS political attack are effectively working for the republican campaign. how bland and unimaginative.

"The problem is that there are so many of his statements that are clearly political"

Say...this wouldn't be because, he's, I dunno, a politician would it?! Norm, I respect that you have a problem with Barack, but honestly, it's statements like that that demonstrate a pretty blatant double standard when you're comparing the candidates. Of course his public statements have a political purpose! So does virtually every public gesture Hillary has ever made (including, if you ask me--in retrospect--her little tear session before NH, but no need to get into that). If you expect Barack to regularly give public speeches just for kicks without considering the political implications, you're asking him to be, for lack of a better word, a dumb politician.

No I don't think candidates are tarnished by people they know or even like, unless is has some reflection it what the candidate themselves do. If Bush knew and someone claimed he admired radical Christian Zionists it gains no traction unless you see him acting in such a way that reflects their views. Obama's style has never been the reverend Wright style. His style fits the speech on race he gave right after the Wright affair. I guess people have a right to say he comes off phoney to them (even Hillary supporters!), but he doesn't have this past history of black church militancy that he's now covering up to run for office.

This really is the same pattern as red-baiting took. A big chunk of people in the 50s who were seriously on the left had at least some small connection with a communist or socialist group or person at some point. So the idea was that you could disqualify that big chunk of the left by digging this connection up and accusing them of being a secret agent. Today any black candidate on the left who has been a part of the black churches is going to know some extreme elements. So the Wright affair is the pattern for disqualifying just about every left-wing black candidate, even someone with the kind of conciliatory, unifying political style that Barack Obama has.

Chris Matthews? Tucker Carlson? Come on, Norm. Why not post a link to Powerline while you're at it?

yeah, it's depressing to see anyone take these pundits seriously. why buy into it? they have no credibility, so why give it to them? they're doing exactly what jon srewart said, when he visited them a few years back: "hurting america." and that's all they do.

I hardly think McCain is getting a free ride from conservatives. I think the more powerful factor is the need for electability when your party is facing an uphill battle; Republicans simply can't afford a Democrat-like primary fight.

Like it or not, perception matters. The "McSame" perception is relevant, as is that of Wright, or Hillary's truthfullness. Perception is all politics is...you need a great story, not just a platform. Obama had that, but it may have slipped away.

Norm, This election year has been hard on you and I think you are losing your sense of perspective. Barack Obama has a pastor who has said some crazy and seriously reprehensible things. Obama has clearly and without qualification denounced those crazy things, but has not denounced his pastor. He has explicitly compared the crazy beliefs of his pastor with the bigoted views/attitudes of his own grandmother and has explained that he could no more cut himself off from his pastor than he could cut himself off from his grandmother.

OK - let's consider a comparison. The other candidates in this race and many, probably most, of the current and previous occupants of the White House, have had huge numbers of very close friends - including spouses and even themselves, who belong to a cult whose members have One Mutual Friend (OMF). Many, perhaps most, of the members of the cult of the OMF actually believe and approve of actions of the OMF that dwarf all the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and every other mass murderer in all of history combined! (Cue in the Southpark-style caption here: THIS IS WHAT THE OMF CULT MEMBERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!). Yes indeed, they actually believe that the OMF selected out a single family from all the people on earth and ruthlessly exterminated everyone else! In fact, the members of the cult of the OMF believe that the OMF is an unquestionably GOOD individual. Not a single one of these other candidates and presidents has ever denounced an OMF cult member for their views! Amazing - but true!

Why in the fuck would anyone watch Hardball? Another non-issue being debated by Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews--the retard brothers.

Who cares about his pastor? I don´t plan on voting for him, I´m voting for the Democratic nominee.

But on another note: What's the matter with Bill Moyers? Now, that this issue was finally dying for good - he goes and gives this guy a platform? I know, I know, he's a journalist, not a campaign manager. But he's also one of the few liberals in the business. And I'm sure he was appalled as well, by what ABC did with that debate.

And now this? For heaven's sake! With even liberal journalists pulling stunts like these there's just no way Obama will survive until November. (Let alone Hillary, just to be sure, Norm.) Say hello to President McCain.

@leftbanker: you have to remember that logic runs backwards in Clinton-world. Obama should lose. Hardball offers arguments against Obama. Therefore Hardball should be watched.

Unbelievable. Obama makes a 45 minute speech on this issue and they act like he's dodged the issue and has never spoken about Rev. Wright.

From Obama's speech: For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. ... We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

Unfortunately, the creators of shows like this one prefer this kind of coverage, because it allows them to keep their jobs without having to do any journalistic work. Just rehash old stories with slightly new information. It's politics as reality spectacle.

Step up Barack or you really will be unelectable.

Again, I'll do you one better:

Step up Democrats, or Barack really will be unelectable.

The Reverend Wright is saying that Barack agrees with him

That is only one interpretation of what he is saying. He may be saying that he essentially sees his job as a pastor to stir the pot and rial people up on these issues .

But do we really find alot of what this guy is saying is Nuts?

His God damn america speech was really about american war crimes and crimes against its own people. Without running through it point by point, isn't that exactly what we have all been saying about this shit for the last 8 years. We have been doing wrong.

Now the Hillary ain't a n%$##@! speech is offensive, because of its language, not so much its ideas.

I imagine there are the ussual conspiracy theories that play the black distrust of the govt. 9/11 and wright made some comments about aids being a manufactured disease. THose are crazy, but CIA selling drugs in the US is real and I can see how those that have seen a government plot acted against them are more likely to believe other such theories.

But, I think that the, this is my crazy uncle, I love him, but I don't share his views will continue to make this issue have zero effect on polling and actual votes.

That won't keep the MSM and the occasional blog from hauling it out and rehashing it over and over until it makes us sick to our stomachs.

I am sure if they make hillary the nominee we will find out she has some crazy friends. On the other hand, McCain is a nut all on his own. I bet that plays worse in the fall.

Norm,

Your bias against Obama is showing badly here. At the very least, you should be calling for John McCain to give a long, detailed, nationally televised explanation for why he has added John Hagee as his spiritual advisor. You should be telling McCain to step up or he'll really be unelectable. You should be demanding that the press comb through the membership of Hillary Clinton's prayer breakfasts and demanding that she account for the views of the members of those prayer breakfasts. Have all the clerics in all the churches that Hillary has attended been vetted in the same manner as Wright? Why aren't you asking that?

Just to be clear - I am not implying that the Wright's views are acceptable. I'm asking for equal treatment for all the candidates on all sides of the political debate. There was a time when John McCain denounced Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell - both of whom have made statements that are as crazy and reprehensible as those of Wright. McCain has now reversed himself by having visited Liberty University and kissed Falwell's ring. Pat Robertson was actually considered a viable GOP candidate - and no opposing candidate in the GOP refused to share the stage with him. Have you allowed yourself to be sucked into the right's game - only Obama will become 'unelectable' for his association with Wright? Before you reply (and it's your blog, so I understand perfectly that you are under no obligation to do so), please ask yourself whether you have allowed an unfair bias against Obama to creep into your framing of this clip.

Respectfully,

Tim

Ok, let's go over this again....

Is Wright wrong (hehe) when he says that america needs to accept blame for the damage we caused in the middle east that lead to 9/11? Or do we now accept bush's theory of "they hate us because our freedom".

Is Wright wrong when he thinks that the government has used tactics in the past to suppress minorites? A man who sees hoses turned on his fellow man isn't going to have a hard time assuming that AIDS could be another version of such an act.

"America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" - MLK, 1967.

McCain's Bedmate Hagee says that Katrina was the fault of "the gay parades in New Orleans" and was god destroying an evil city ("god damning" New Orleans, if you will) And not a single link on OGM to the NPR Fresh Air Interview where Hagee says such things.

Doesn't it worry you Norm that you now agree with Tucker "bow tie" Carlson?

To quote a great great man to everyone in this Hardball clip. "You... you're hurting America"

Doesn't it worry you Norm that you now agree with Tucker "bow tie" Carlson?

Not if I think what he's saying is accurate. And to the point that Jeremiah Wright is implying that Barack agrees with him and is just doing the politically expedient thing, I think he's spot on. If Tucker said you should love your mom, would you disagree with him because he wears a bow tie, give me a break.

to the point that Jeremiah Wright is implying that Barack agrees with him and is just doing the politically expedient thing, I think he's spot on.

You honestly think that Obama believes the US government designed and released the aids virus?

That's crazy.

Wright implies it in an attempt to dodge the question of whether his statements are worthy of being denounced.

The man is clearly angry and embarrassed.

i have 2 questions, but the 2nd one depends on the answer to the first. if you obamaphiles can answer both, you can have the very last word on this issue and i will stfu about this issue.

Obama said in his speech about Rev Wright: "When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments."

(i am asking because i truly do not know the answer:) can someone point me in the direction of Obama's condemnation of Wright's comments which he states were made at the beginning of his presidential campaign (I guess that would have been about a year ago)?

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy.

"In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn."

"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

Yeah, but you can't believe Obama's Lying Mouth. DEEP DOWN, he really agrees with Wright. And he's a muslim lying in wait ready to destroy america on 1/20/09 too!

oh, and HIllary is really a republican ready to destroy the Democratic party, from the inside out by posing as a democrat.

(i am asking because i truly do not know the answer:) can someone point me in the direction of Obama's condemnation of Wright's comments which he states were made at the beginning of his presidential campaign (I guess that would have been about a year ago)?

He uninvited him from his campaign events. Not sure if he ever did it publicly although I think I remember there being some mention of a private conversation between the two where Obama basically told him if you are going to say this shit I can't have you around me.

Which I am sure had Wright pissed as hell and he probably decided to say more inflammatory things to get back at Obama for disrespecting his spiritual authority.

BTW, by responding I in no way support calling obama supporters, "you obamaphiles".

It better then Obamamaniacs or cultists, but I can still hear a touch of contempt.

You Clintonspiracy theorist you.

I think 'obamaphiles' is a gentler more ambiguous term that does not betray any negative bias; but i think that obamamaniacs has a nice rhythm to it. for that reason, clintonians or clintonites, or clintonistas also has a nice flow - time for a sodahead poll i think.

ok, here's my second question. why, if obama is so vehemently opposed, strongly condemns and categorically denounces, wright's positions and statements, did he wait a year (if we take obama at his word that he was unaware of wright's statements until he was told about them a year ago), why did he wait a year to make such a denouncement and only when it was politically necessary to do so?

why did he wait a year to make such a denouncement and only when it was politically necessary to do so?

What should he done? Held a press conference? To denounce the words of a man the press and the public had never heard of?

It would have been silly. His first act as a presidential candidate would have been saying he thinks his pastor is crazy.

clintonians or clintonites, or clintonistas also has a nice flow - time for a sodahead poll i think.

How about Obamanese or Barackonians?

Norm-

Did you see today's gallup numbers? They tend to be pretty consistent (see Gallup's McCain v Obama). Look at Clinton's 1-week trend.

clintonistas is a reference to staff and not supporters.

Not sure of who first called their campaign team that, but it goes back to at least the Harkinistas.

What should he done? Held a press conference? To denounce the words of a man the press and the public had never heard of? It would have been silly. His first act as a presidential candidate would have been saying he thinks his pastor is crazy.

yes, my point exactly.

it is clear that this is a significant problem for obama now.

according to obama, when he found out a year ago, he felt his pastor's views were inflammatory and unacceptable and as he says now should be condemned

it should have been clear that wright's views would not go undiscovered. it would be naive to think that noone was going to notice -

so instead of denouncing wright preemptively, obama decided to make religiosity a touchpoint in his speeches and it was through his own doing that brought wright to the public's attention

so that leaves only two conclusions: 1. obama was being deceitful when he spoke about condemning wright or,

1. obama was inept in dealing with a problem he could have nipped in the bud.

sorry can't count - that was 1. and then 2.

clintonistas is a reference to staff and not supporters.

Ha!

I like Barackonians and Clintonites. one sounds like an alien life form (beltway outsider), the other, a substance with inexplicable repulsive properties (although we know both are not true).

You honestly think that Obama believes the US government designed and released the aids virus?

Of course not, I think that his Pastor leaves that impression with his talk that Barack's talk is what politicians have to do not what they really believe in. I thought that was clear from the comments that Tucker made on the show.

yes, my point exactly.

obama was inept in dealing with a problem he could have nipped in the bud.

what? You agree it would have been silly to denounce an unknown man, but you think it was inept not to?

You Clintonites are so Clintonian.

I thought I made it perfectly clear what my view is. I think that the Republicans will use clips of Barack's Pastor saying that what Barack is doing is what politicians HAVE TO DO, the implication is that is not being truthful. The implication is that Barack agrees with him. I understand that it can be read in a different way, but I don't think it will and so he must address it or it will cost him votes. I think some here are not reading very carefully.

Of course not, I think that his Pastor leaves that impression with his talk that Barack's talk is what politicians have to do

Yeah, I think that implication is just the byproduct of him being indignant. Thinking Barack should not disagree with him in public even if he disagrees in private.

I think some here are not reading very carefully.

altogether possible.

I share your view of how republicans will try to interpret it. although I doubt dishonest is part of the Obama message triangle.

I think that is different then how it was intended.

Here is my estimation of the Republican negative strategy

Obama Weak (liberal elitist) Inexperienced Unpatriotic

(Secretly Moslem, terrorist loving, Jew hating)

Clinton Liar/Fraud Flip Flopper (war, NAFTA) Corrupt opportunist

(Secretly Lesbian, communist, Wife of chronic Cheater)

This Wright stuff is just one piece of a very big negative puzzle. Which negatives hit harder? Only time will tell.

It's a shame we are sitting around talking about this rather then the...

Old Crazy (unstable war-monger) Sellout (torture)

...that the republicans have running.

Damn the lack of returns.

The Tuskegee Experiments included 399 black men, was run by the US Public Health Service and lasted 40 years.

Now ask, what IS the point of this? Why would employees allow this to occur over 40 years? What does the government really do with that information?

Now I AM a 'conspiracy theorist'

Why?

-because RFK was shot from behind -because there were guys in tactical gear at the scene in Oklahoma City within 3 minutes (duty station is 20 mins away) -because two audio recorders in nearby buildings show two bombs going off there -because the AFT and FBI employees were called at home that Tuesday morning and told not to come into work -because Andy the German, the undercover agent tipped off the feds and they tried to bust the OKC bombers (also federal bank robbers) in the act, and fucked up. -OKC was not an intentional desaster, but it was 100% covered up

-MKULTRA was/is a CIA mind control experiment involving some nasty shit, all public record. (nasty shit includes electric shock on mothers experiencing depression, some lost 40 years of memory. Includes raping 3 year old girls as victims of early trauma showed signs of increased susceptability to suggestion)

-the CIA did/does import drugs to the US to sell and make money for black ops.

-JFK, who knows who killed him, he pissed off the CIA, the Mafia and half the government. What we do know is it was actively covered up by people in power, several of which went on to become Presidents.

So, ask, why did, employees for FORTY YEARS continue the Tuskegee Experiments, how many employees is that? allow black men to die and infect their wifes, and have children born with birth defects? Why?

My uncle worked at the Nevada Nuclear Test Facility.

One time, after an unexpected light rain, they initiated an instrument (bomb). The mushroom cloud, assisted by far more steam than normal, went twice as high as it normally did, got into the jet stream and dropped radiation over Wyoming and Nebraska. Breast cancer rates are very high there.

+++++ I'm not saying the goverment WANTS to hurt us. I am saying that by trying to protect us, they do some nasty shit. +++++

This war, for those paying attention, is a perfect example.

I Just saw the interview of the reverend Wright with Bill Moyers. I loved him. He was pleasant and polite and for a non-religious person I liked what he said. He is no nut. Its people who call him a nut who are very misguided. I agree the sound bites sounded very incriminating. But after hearing his entire speech he was right on the mark. Americans just do not want to hear the truth which is very unsavoury. Now I understand how the corporate media just twists everything around. The reverend Wright is a great man for all that he is done for his people and for speaking the truth bravely!

Geez, the guy (Wright) is spot on in most of his observations. What's the F*in problem?

I wonder how many people failed to give the man a chance to be heard, in context, unedited, because they watched a little slice & dice "analysis" (propaganda) by corporate media hacks.

Please wake up soon, people.

Please start putting the pieces together.

You can't pick & choose when principles matter. They either ALWAYS matter...or they aren't principles.

Please consider making it a lifelong goal to develop a more intimate relationship with integrity. Without that, nothing gets better. Props just get moved around.

I wonder how many people failed to give the man a chance to be heard, in context, unedited, because they watched a little slice & dice "analysis" (propaganda) by corporate media hacks.

That's the point I was making, he will be presented out of context, and out of context the impression he leaves is not a good one. I repeat Barack needs to step up and deal with it.

No, Norm. Hussein doesn't have a chance. He should just give up and endorse Rodham.

To username 2, if you wish to use middle names, strive for accuracy. Hussein, Diane (Rodham is her maiden name) and Sidney.. the republican.

PS did any of you see the whole interview? He didn't seem that crazy overall, I couldn't really watch all of it, way too boring and too much bible references for a friday night.

i really dont find anything problematic with what the rev. said about either 9-11 or "god damn america"

moyers put the clips in context, and in context i agree with them. they are hardly controversial.

if anything, wright makes me more likely to vote for barak (if i was america)

i really dont find anything problematic with what the rev. said about either 9-11 or "god damn america"

moyers put the clips in context, and in context i agree with them. they are hardly controversial.

if anything, wright makes me more likely to vote for barak (if i was america)

I have only heard brief extracts of Rev Jeremiah Wright's comments, but from what I have heard the man is clearly not a NUT! Ask anyone outside of the USA and I would suggest that the vast majority would endorse his remarks on US foreign policy and internal race relations. I also suspect that Obama does indeed share these views but dare not air them because politcal debate in the US has been supressed in to such a disingenuous and childish series of soundbites, that honest political debate alienates a candidate from the brainwashed masses.

i really dont find anything problematic with what the rev. said about either 9-11 or "god damn america"

moyers put the clips in context, and in context i agree with them. they are hardly controversial.

if anything, wright makes me more likely to vote for barak (if i was america)

i really dont find anything problematic with what the rev. said about either 9-11 or "god damn america"

moyers put the clips in context, and in context i agree with them. they are hardly controversial.

if anything, wright makes me more likely to vote for barak (if i was america)

i really dont find anything problematic with what the rev. said about either 9-11 or "god damn america"

moyers put the clips in context, and in context i agree with them. they are hardly controversial.

if anything, wright makes me more likely to vote for barak (if i was america)

i really dont find anything problematic with what the rev. said about either 9-11 or "god damn america"

moyers put the clips in context, and in context i agree with them. they are hardly controversial.

if anything, wright makes me more likely to vote for barak (if i was america)

i really dont find anything problematic with what the rev. said about either 9-11 or "god damn america"

moyers put the clips in context, and in context i agree with them. they are hardly controversial.

if anything, wright makes me more likely to vote for barak (if i was america)

Naturally Matthews selected the one sentence that could be most easily be dissected and criticized. Let's look at it more closely.

"I don't talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. ."

I think the panel's interpretation of that sentence was cynical and unfair. I think it is quite possible and even probable that Wright's intent in using the phrase "has to say" was in terms of the possessive as in "he has something to say", not in the sense that he must say something out of political expediency.

Wright also talks about himself saying what he has to say as a pastor. This affirms my interpretation, I think, since it is unlikely he would be characterizing himself as having to be disingenuous as an inherent part of his profession.

I watched the entire Moyers interview. Rev. Wright comes off as a decent man when his Jeremiah dial isn't cranked up to eleven.

@k: Since when has accuracy been relevant around these parts? Clinton-winningousness is all that matters.

Norm, why are you buying into this pundit-spank?

Norm, why are you buying into this pundit-spank?

I'm not personally buying into it, but believe it will be a problem for Barack and he'll need to address it at some point.

Norm said:

That's the point I was making, he will be presented out of context, and out of context the impression he leaves is not a good one. I repeat Barack needs to step up and deal with it.

Norm, with any due respect, that is NOT the point you made in the original article. You stated, without conditions,

Maybe I'm just buying into the pundit's hype, but I agree with them.... I think Barack has to make a total break from this nut.

You said nothing about context. In fact, YOU presented Wright out of context YOURSELF.

Integrity, Norm. There's no substitute.

When people are presented out of context, THEY do not leave an impression. Those who misrepresent them do.

That's the game.

That's how America has been dumbed down.

Norm, maybe, like many political bloggers, you are paid to purvey a particular viewpoint. Or maybe, as you suggested, you figuratively "bought into the pundit's hype." But intentionally or not, in this instance your hands are stained by that game. Now do the right thing.

WHO is right is not nearly as important as WHAT is right.

I repeat:

Please wake up soon, people.

Please start putting the pieces together.

Please consider making it a lifelong goal to develop a more intimate relationship with integrity. Without that, nothing gets better. Props just get moved around.

Followup:

For the record, I DO agree with Norm that Obama will have to deal with this at some point. Again. And again. As he has been doing all along.

He has rightly and correctly dealt with the real problem: political distractions.

It's not about Wright, any more than it's about lapel pins.

It's about honesty in public discourse.

For the record, I DO agree with Norm that Obama will have to deal with this at some point. Again. And again. As he has been doing all along

And why does Hillary not have to deal with her outrageous made-up fairy tale about her courageous experience avoiding sniper fire? And why does HIllary not have to deal with other questions? Why? Because Barack Obama is not attacking her all that hard. His surrogates may bring up these issues, but what surrogates say don't get much press. The candidate themselves have to address an issue for it to be brought up over and over and over again.

Re Reverend Wright, Hillary Clinton could have responded, "No comment". But she chose to say that she wouldn't have stayed in that church.

Well, some women wouldn't have stayed with a man who allowed an intern to give him a blow job in the oval office.

If we're going to get personal re Obama, then that opens the door to getting personal with Hillary Clinton.

Either those kinds of questions are on the table or off the table.. for both candidates.

For the record, I DO agree with Norm that Obama

That's "Barack" or "Hussein" -- the senator does not deserve to be called by his last name in Norm-land.

there was nothing reprehensible about what this pastor said. he's just using christian metaphors to describe the criminal activities that make up the bulk of united states government policies toward people of color, within our borders and without, since its founding. our nation was built on a foundation of mass murder and slavery. it is up to us if we want to face that as intellectuals, or call it water under the bridge and pretend it isn't part of the fabric of our every day.

if you haven't seen what this guy really said, have a look. and tell me your critique, if you will, of what he says there. i wonder if some of the people posting here, saying this guy is a nut, have really listened to what he said in the speech that started this dumb excuse for a controversy. and i will submit that if you disagree with the points he makes here, i'd really like to know precisely why.

hehe.. except the "god" stuff. organized religion is ridiculous in my opinion. but as for his points about america, i don't anticipate a strong rebuttal to any of it.

Redseven, missed your reply in the hail of comments that followed.

why did he wait a year to make such a denouncement and only when it was politically necessary to do so?

What should he done? Held a press conference? To denounce the words of a man the press and the public had never heard of?

It would have been silly. His first act as a presidential candidate would have been saying he thinks his pastor is crazy.

my line of thinking was this: when obama realized what the pastor had said could easily be construed as inflammatory and detrimental to his campaign, he should have made his feelings about this clear in a public manner as soon as he found out about it. why bother? well, obama perceived that religiosity would be an issue and went so far as to make this an issue for his campaign; that to do this without so much as considering the consequences of others evaluating his 'spiritual guide' is either short-sighted or contemptuous. while this may draw attention to wright at a point early in his campaign, it also quells any further discussion since it would have been dealt with prospectively and would not have had the chance to snowball into a 'mountain' as some have characterized it. so he does not have to say his pastor is crazy - he can make the same stirring speech (he made in March 2008) a year ago when he claims he first heard these remarks and it would have had a much greater impact.

so again - he is either inept or deceitful - the latter being the only other reason he would not have addressed this problem earlier.

guess who said the following when about responding to opponents attacks:

"If you're really tough, sometimes you just walk away,"

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2641481620080426?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=10112

that is the best way to lose an election, , general or otherwise. just ask John Kerry.

so again - he is either inept or deceitful - the latter being the only other reason he would not have addressed this problem earlier.

Or, just a guy put in an awkward position by an old friend.

Arguably, most of the quotes from Rev Wright are from after obama started his race.

What was the likely hood of the republicans bringing up obscure quotes from years ago if he hadn't said "God Damn America" and "Hillary ain't never been called a n$%$#r"?

None.

And imagine the Moslem rumors if he left his church or just denounced them. Not to mention that the AA comunity would not have liked him publicly insulting his Partor.

And imagine the Moslem rumors if he left his church or just denounced them.

that would have been a lot easier to deal with than the perception that he is endorsing the words of his 'spiritual' guide.

Not to mention that the AA comunity would not have liked him publicly insulting his Partor. If obama believes that he should preserve the support of the AA community at the cost of crippling his nomination, then he is in serious trouble with his campaign priorities. Besides, that is not how the AA community reacted after his Mar 08 speech when he denounced wright's words so this turns out to be a moot point.

What was the likely hood of the republicans bringing up obscure quotes from years ago if he hadn't said "God Damn America" and "Hillary ain't never been called a n$%$#r"?

Again, one would have to be incredibly naive to think neither the republicans nor a reporter would not uncover this especially after obama made a pointed speech about his religiosity. in a pragmatic sense, obama's campaign, and the democrats in fact should be grateful, that the problem of his association with wright was brought up now, instead the week before the general election (assuming obama is the nominee). it is a form of 'vetting' and obama failed to scrutinize himself letting others do it for him and then reacted belatedly. if he is the nominee, this will have washed over by the general election.

(sorry I screwed up the parsing - just ignore above - too hard to read):

And imagine the Moslem rumors if he left his church or just denounced them.

that would have been a lot easier to deal with than the perception that he is endorsing the words of his 'spiritual' guide.

Not to mention that the AA comunity would not have liked him publicly insulting his Partor.

If obama believes that he should preserve the support of the AA community at the cost of crippling his nomination, then he is in serious trouble with his campaign priorities. Besides, that is not how the AA community reacted after his Mar 08 speech when he denounced wright's words so this turns out to be a moot point.

What was the likely hood of the republicans bringing up obscure quotes from years ago if he hadn't said "God Damn America" and "Hillary ain't never been called a n$%$#r"?

Again, one would have to be incredibly naive to think neither the republicans nor a reporter would uncover this especially after obama made a pointed speech about his religiosity. in a pragmatic sense, obama's campaign, and the democrats in fact should be grateful, that the problem of his association with wright was brought up now, instead the week before the general election (assuming obama is the nominee). it is a form of 'vetting' and obama failed to scrutinize himself letting others do it for him and then reacted belatedly. if he is the nominee, this will have washed over by the general election.

the democrats in fact should be grateful, that the problem of his association with wright was brought up now, instead the week before the general election (assuming obama is the nominee)

Yes and No.

Yes in that it gets to be old news, but no in the fact that Hillary brought it up gives it credit in the base when it may have been dismissed as a partisan smear in Oct.

Again, one would have to be incredibly naive to think neither the republicans nor a reporter would uncover this especially after obama made a pointed speech about his religiosity.

Again, one would have to be incredibly naive to think this story would have had a 10th the impact without the words "God Damn America" on video, in a viral Youtube video.

Here's the deal: Barack Obama is an atheist who aspires to high political office. He realizes that being an atheist automatically excludes him from political viability, so he selected the most liberal church he could find, the United Church of Christ. The particular branch of this church, which Obama attends, is situated in one of the nation's most liberal districts. The pastor at this branch makes a practice of addressing his parishioners' concerns, some of which border on anti-black conspiracy theories. Given this nation's history regarding the treatment of its black citizens (Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Fred Hampton assassination, etc.), these theories are not unreasonable. The right-wing press, desperate to exploit any flaw in Obama's character, is doing all it can to portray Rev. Wright as uncharitably as possible. Unfortunately, Norm is assisting these assholes.

Yes in that it gets to be old news, but no in the fact that Hillary brought it up gives it credit in the base when it may have been dismissed as a partisan smear in Oct.

Agree.

Again, one would have to be incredibly naive to think neither the republicans nor a reporter would uncover this especially after obama made a pointed speech about his religiosity.

Again, one would have to be incredibly naive to think this story would have had a 10th the impact without the words "God Damn America" on video, in a viral Youtube video.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive - YES, absolutely, it would be incredibly naive to believe that neither of these would happen.

This would support the ineptitude argument.

Here's the deal: Barack Obama is an atheist who aspires to high political office. He realizes that being an atheist automatically excludes him from political viability, so he selected the most liberal church he could find, the United Church of Christ.

when you put it that way you almost make it sound like he is using religion to help his campaign. in a rather unabashed manner. and rather clumsily it seems now.

The right-wing press, desperate to exploit any flaw in Obama's character, is doing all it can to portray Rev. Wright as uncharitably as possible. Unfortunately, Norm is assisting these assholes.

So if I report on what I think the right-wing will do with the Wright story I'm assisting them. What you're saying is don't criticize Barack because that helps the right-wing, and your criticisms of Hillary don't. I think Hillary is the better candidate that she is more electable than Barack and if I list the reasons I help the right-wing, but if you list reasons why you think Barack is the better candidate that's okay. Sounds like a double standard.

I think the Pastor was nuts to continue talking to the press, because that gives the right-wing additional clips to use against Barack. I agree with most of what the Pastor says, excepting his claims of conspiracies about HIV.

Das ist je gewisslich wahr...

Norm is assisting these assisting these assisting these... ...assisting these,

Rut you are (stuck in)...Wright!

Wright, Lemos, Dzwonka, and other speakers of not standard AA-ese, they all have in common a surfeit of emotion, rolling in the passion like sports fans, only it's for real, world.

Norm(ally objective Norm) has bought into, paid... his quivalent of his Maharishi, mega-rich-y yogi, for (t)his mantra. He's paid his due and is buying a stare away vacantly into the distance. He's on the give, not the take, sometimes all of his thoughts are (a)mis...

Focus.

IF you "believe", have confidence, in, evolution, 3.5 billion years of non-verbal signalling, vs a thin patina of icing on the cake verbal pointing really, all vocabulary is "digit"al in that it is pointer finger extension, or, in Wright(-on)'s case/Fall, arm waving*.

Focus. Lens-not-snail pace.

(Man soll hier BWV 140 Bachwerkever/aus-zeichnen,, BWV/A 140, 141, 141.42135623730950488016887242096980785696 ...)

.

.

.

*Oof Dootch, verbal diarrhea, Shits "o' Phrenia", Wachet auf, Norms o' the World. By the way, "spot on" is hardly standard American English. What is it? Kiwi-ese? Antipodean? Or just plain old (islands off of) Old European?

Whatever.

Norm, stop the intellectual dishonesty already. For starters, I haven't criticized HRC in these pages, except indirectly by criticizing Democrats in general. I have made it a point to stay out of the Clinton v. Obama discussions here, in large part because I don't really like either candidate. I have never, never ever "list(ed) reasons why (I) think Barack is the better candidate." I even forwarded you the phony baloney "is somebody feeling faint" video. Remember? As I've said in the past, this is shaping up to be another hold-your-nose-and-vote election. My choice(s) are long since removed from this "contest." Moreover, I don't begrudge your criticisms of Obama or any other public figure as long as the criticisms are fair & valid, which in this case they aren't. For example, you could criticize Obama for being supported by the same Washington insiders as HRC (or for that matter, McCain & Bush); or you could criticize him for the way in which his rosy oratory evades commitment to any actual policy doctrine; or for his lack of political experience or spotty voting record or any number of other valid concerns. Instead, you post a ridiculously dishonest segment from Chris Matthews (featuring Tucker Carlson of all people) simply because it takes shots at the candidate you don't like. Who's next? Hannity? You are not "reporting on what (you) think the right-wing will do with the Wright story." On the contrary, as you yourself admitted in the very first sentence of this post, you are "buying into the pundit's (sic) hype." Both Clinton & Obama are deeply flawed candidates who IMO represent a terrible choice for Democratic voters, but either one will probably be better than McCain, though not by much. My criticism of this post does not reflect my preference for Obama, as you contend; rather, it reflects my disgust with the childishness of our national political discourse. That disgust is why I visit 1GM in the first place, and why I am disturbed to see such wanton partisanship here. "Reporting" implies impartiality. This post represents not impartiality but cheap hackery.

when you put it that way you almost make it sound like he is using religion to help his campaign. in a rather unabashed manner. and rather clumsily it seems now.

Yep.

Instead, you post a ridiculously dishonest segment from Chris Matthews (featuring Tucker Carlson of all people) simply because it takes shots at the candidate you don't like. Who's next? Hannity? You are not "reporting on what (you) think the right-wing will do with the Wright story." On the contrary, as you yourself admitted in the very first sentence of this post, you are "buying into the pundit's (sic) hype."

That's right, I'm buying into the hype that the Pastor's statements will be used by the right-wing to attack Barack. Do you disagree? It is obvious what the right-wing will do with the story. I've, in the past given, all credit for filling in the obvious, I see that's a mistake when those such as yourself so quickly jump to false conclusions as to both my motive and intent.

The criticism of those on these pages was not directed at you specifically, but the general tone. I often post links to articles that are critical of Barack to elicit supporters response to them. Do they think he should respond how should he meet the charges etc. Many here take that to mean that I agree with the specific charges. If I agree with a specific charge I'll usually make a comment that I agree. My purpose in attacking Barack is two-fold to counter the he's something different meme that so many buy in to, and second as I mentioned to elicit supporters ideas on how he should meet the charges. You are one of the few who doesn't begrudge valid criticisms of your candidates, but many Barack supporters take any criticism as inappropriate because they believe the primaries are over, and everyone should just get on board.

"The Reverend Wright is saying that Barack agrees with him, but that politicians don't say what they really believe." I don't think that's a fair statement. It's an interpretation, but in this clip at least, Wright never said that Barack agrees with him. And it's hardly news that politicians aren't well-known for saying what they really think about anything. I'm just disappointed that, rather than posting the actual interview, which is what I assumed I'd find here, you post this snarky and, I think, wrong-headed blather.

"So if I report on what I think the right-wing will do with the Wright story I'm assisting them." That seems like quite a rationalization of what is simply another shot at Barack. It's your blog and you can support whom you want, but I fear for your objectivity on the subject of Senator Obama. If your main motivation here were in reporting on how the right-wing will attack Democrats, then you'd have no room on the site for anything else -- there's nonsense like this on the airwaves all day long, no?

Oh, and Robinson -- "-JFK, who knows who killed him" -- off topic, of course, but it was a guy named Oswald.

Excellent insight from Adam regarding Tuskegee...

zdzp

These two statements are not mutually exclusive - YES, absolutely, it would be incredibly naive to believe that neither of these would happen.

This would support the ineptitude argument.

Not following you, you continue to suggest Obama was inept for not denouncing his reverend for things his reverend had not yet said.

Obama kept him out of his campaign when he saw he had the potential to be bombastic. But, he said his most controversial statements when Obama was off running for president.

so maybe i am confused about the timing of all this.

my impression from your earlier answer and from the media is that obama was aware of his pastors controversial statements when he began running for office - which i would guess was about a year ago, maybe less. yet obama said nothing publicly until march this year. am i wrong about this?

It depends on what you mean by controversial statements

I think the Pastor was nuts to continue talking to the press, because that gives the right-wing additional clips to use against Barack.

I simply can not believe that Wright did not consult with Obama before deciding to address the public himself. It's too immense - a presidency is at stake; the first black presidency.

Obama's most dangerous and effective weapon is his ability to deflect attacks. So I wonder if this isn't a tactical move of the Obama campaign: carpet bomb the American consciousness with Reverend Wright themselves, thereby weakening the coming attacks from the Republicans.

If anyone has a link to prove otherwise, by all means...

So I wonder if this isn't a tactical move of the Obama campaign

The turd-blossom strategy.

For God's sake, Norm, how hard is this?

It's "Obama," not "Barack." Just like it's "Democratic," not "Democrat," and "Clinton" or (because she uses it herself, though I find it smarmy) "Hillary," not "Hillary Rodham." Why do you persist? I think it's just because, like "Democrat," "Barack" can be said with a nice consonant sneer, but maybe you have a better reason...

Post your criticism with a respectful tone, and people might think you're being intellectually honest and we can have a real discussion. For example, one big reason I used to have for supporting Obama is that he used to do much better against McCain. Now it seems like neither candidate does that well, and I'm more conflicted.

Or just sneer, and we can have a food fight. Again.

I was wrong - there, evidently, are no evil geniuses on Obama's team.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Clintonsupporterinvited_Wright.html

better link