My late grandmother always said that when one's intent is to look for trouble, success is inevitable.

You mean we'd have to listen to them talk about real issues for 6 weeks? There's no ad revenue for the talking head shows in that.

The primary media objective is to generate a generally negative atmosphere around the Democratic candidates.

They will just keep picking away at this.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but other times it tells you something about the person smoking it.

Bringing up Obama's smoking in this forum and implying it has something to do with his morals is reprehensible and quite possibly racist. Shame on you Kevin.

In the interest of maintaining impartiality and avoiding the appearance of a double standard, I say we continue to believe the worst about everyone till the election is decided. I think it's also safe to say that a presidential candidates sphere of control easily extends out three degrees of separation. Of course if Kevin Bacon starts talking smack I'll hold it against all of them.

I was enjoying the Kinsey column until I realized he was making a little more fun of Obama. Bastard. I demand that Hillary apologize right now, or my vote will go to Lyndon Larouche.

B: "Bringing up Obama's smoking in this forum and implying it has something to do with his morals is reprehensible and quite possibly racist. Shame on you Kevin."

LOL! C'est magnifique! Remind me to hire you as my campaign's official spinmeister guru guy, if ever I'm masochistic enough to run for high office.

Ha! I initially thought the cigar mention was a Clinton-Monica reference.

Implied references are clearly in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but sometimes it can help impeach a president, too...

Good point Zoe. Shame on you Kevin for also dragging a former president through the mud.

In all the time I've read Kevin Drum, I have never seen him post crazy stuff about cigars. Now that I know about it, I reject and denounce him. I'm going on Faux News tonight to say so. And he'll have to resign from my bookmarks.

Candidates deserve scrutiny for what their supporters say and are responsible for forthrightly disowning incendiary remarks.

It depends on how you define "supporters". I presume what you mean are the people the candidates associate and/or work with. When someone on your campaign staff like Ferraro says racially divisive things, yes, you are responsible for them and must disown them or risk taking ownership of them.

Similarly, when your pastor (like Obama's pastor Wright) says crazy things, you are in a similar position of responsibility due to your willing association with them.

[Though I would add a distinction: Hillary owes a much higher duty because her relationship with Ferraro is a working relationship. Ferraro was officially a member of Hillary's campaign and a subordinate who was actively campaigning for Hillary when she made her racially charged comments. Obama's Reverend is not an Obama campaign employee, subordinate, or representative. Obama cannot and should not be held responsible for the things Reverend Wright said because there is little or no chance his statements were coordinated with the Obama campaign, unlike Ferraro's comments. Nevertheless, if you associate yourself with someone who says crazy things, you have some explaining to do.]

One should also note that Reverend Wright's comments seem to have been provoked at least in part by Ferraro's racially charged comments, as well as the (initial) official reaction from the Hillary campaign.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has been extremely effective in smearing Obama and interjecting religious and racial bigotry into the race (not to mention a mini civil war among Democrats) and for what? It's almost mathematically impossible for her to win short of breaking the rules, seating Michigan and Florida, and then having the vast majority of the remaining super delegates tip the election to her. That's unlikely to happen.

It's becoming more and more inescapable that the more plausible scenario the Clinton camp is going for is to tear down Obama enough to insure a McCain victory, in order to set up a Clinton bid in 2012. ("Dear Hillary, thank you for all your hard work that got me elected. Signed John McCain and the GOP").

Move over Joe Lieberman, you're no longer the most ferocious DINO.

B; "Bringing up Obama's smoking in this forum and implying it has something to do with his morals is reprehensible and quite possibly racist."

Barack knows what it means to a smoker living in a country and a culture that is controlled by non-smokers. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nicotine fiend or tobacco hound. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.

Augustus: "One should also note that Reverend Wright's comments seem to have been provoked at least in part by Ferraro's racially charged comments, as well as the (initial) official reaction from the Hillary campaign."

That's absolutely false.

The good reverend's incindiary opinions about Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger ..." -- were first expressed last December in, of all things, his Christmas sermon.

Another example, James Carville in the FT today:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/571bbbee-f122-11dc-a91a-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=729ab242-9cb1-11db-8ec6-0000779e2340.html

FWIW a correction: Reverend Wright was on the "African American Religious Leadership Committee, a loose group of supporters associated with the [OBama] campaign". So Reverend Wright was on a spiritual advisory committee to the Obama campaign.

It's a closer association that I stated above, but still not as close as Ferraro's role in the Clinton campaign.

So did I miss something? DID Hillary in fact grow up black, with a single mother, and get called the n-word? Because if not, then Wright was, you know, telling the truth. (I can understand how people who spend too much time following our screwed-up politics may have lost sight of that concept- "truth", that is.)

Donald: The good reverend's incindiary opinions about Hillary Clinton -- "Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger ..." -- were first expressed last December in, of all things, his Christmas sermon.

I stand corrected. Thank you. I was aware of references to controversial remarks he made in the past, but assumed the current flap over was over recent remarks on top of the past remarks.

Meanwhile... back to principles. Why haven't Hillary and Bill released their taxes, donor lists to the Clinton library, or even Hillary's requests for earmarks going back to 2001?

Out of retirement for one comment only.

Regular readers will know that I was proud to admit I drank Obama's Kool Aide and invested a lot of hopes in him, but I hope he realizes what a blow this is to his campaign with people of my persuasion. Reverend Wright is Willie Horton driving a SwiftBoat full steam ahead at this movement unless Obama can somehow explain this connection without equivocation or spin as he has so far. How can Obama claim with a straight face that "God Damn America!!!" or the govt invented aids to commit genocide were outside the "tenor" of this man's preaching -- if they were there would have been a collective gasp from the parisioners, not jocular cheering.
I see Wright as the Michael Vick of religion, so far given a pass because of the soft bigotry of low expectations. I suspect Obama kept his relationship with the church primarily at his wife's insistence, an unreconstructed limosine liberal who I believe was a member of the church when she met him. I hope he can overcome this, but I don't see how at this point.

Meanwhile... back to principles. Why haven't Hillary and Bill released their taxes, donor lists to the Clinton library, or even Hillary's requests for earmarks going back to 2001?

I heard they have their special donors round off their donations to the nearest $6.66. I also hear they're trying to hide earmarks for memorials for occultist Aleister Crowley and KKK founder Nathan Bedford Forrest. You heard it here first.

Mr. Minion, just because Sean Hannity's says it's super serious and not good enough, doesn't mean that it's actually super serious and not good enough. Just what in the freakin' world is Obama supposed to do...have the Rev. defenestrated for crying out loud? And why this double standard where left wing radicals have to regularly denunciated...and no denuciation is ever good enough...but right wing radicals are utterly tolerated, except if they happen to say something outright racists or sexist and then a simple, "if ___ said anythng _____ then I repudiate it." will do? Stil, I'm pretty sure this is a weekend long story at the most, with occasional flare-ups to follow if Rev. Wright gets perky.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm still hearing about Rev. Wright in three weeks, I might just finally make that big move to Canada, or maybe I'll just busting my TVs and cutting off my Internet connection.

I think it's just terrible that Obama has forfeited the endorsement he would surely otherwise have gotten from Hannutty. Oh, wait...

I demand that all commenters on this thread reject and denounce all the comments they made, since they were all so barbaric as to be unable to avoid writing something inherently offensive.

I'm waiting.

Kevin, I am calling on you to please reject and denounce the March 14, 2008, Friday catblogging. Frankly, sir, it was anthropocentric and degrading.

There.

Just kidding, of course.

I had my animal rights days, but I doubt there would be (and hope there wouldn't be!) anyone who would take their animal rights beliefs that seriously...

Bob,

Read my comment again - I said this is a torpedo directed at his support with people like me - swing voters that Dems need to get elected, not the hardcore leftys that agree with Wright in the first place. If a fat, bald middle-aged white Republican turns out to be a member of a golf course that has no black members, the MSM flap and gibber until he quits, and I think rightly so. So how can we blow off a voluntary association with this Farrakan-lite nutjob for twenty years and thousands of dollars of tithes and support? I still want to believe in Obama - I said my private suspicion is that his wife is more committed to supporting this kind of institutional naughtiness than he is - but if he doesn't give the speech of his life nipping this issue in the bud it will kill his candidacy.

Barack knows what it means to a smoker living in a country and a culture that is controlled by non-smokers. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nicotine fiend or tobacco hound. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.

But Rev - you're just assuming Hillary is a non-smoker. Do you know that for a fact? Has she ever SAID she's a non-smoker? In fact, has any lackey of the MSM even asked? I think not.

Augustus: "It's a closer association that I stated above, but still not as close as Ferraro's role in the Clinton campaign."

They both essentially amount to the same thing, in that such committee positions are used primarily by major campaigns for public relations purposes.

I don't know if you've ever worked on a political campaign, but on large-scale statewide or national campaigns, the members of a finance committee lend their names for purposes of fundraising. Campaigns of that size will usually employ professional fundraisers to determine the scope and target of funding, and the candidates themselves and their immediate senior staff will almost always make the actual solicitations.

Ms. Ferraro was certainly not trolling for big bucks four weeks ago, when she made her controversial remarks before an audience of 300+ working-class folks in the L.A. suburb of Torrance, CA.

The whole failure to denounce business is utter nonsense.

Steve Labonne: "So did I miss something? DID Hillary in fact grow up black, with a single mother, and get called the n-word? Because if not, then Wright was, you know, telling the truth."

Given that line of reasoning logic, so did Geraldine Ferraro.

One really can't argue this issue both ways, regardless of whose candidacy you support, unless there is first an admitted willingness on the part of the proponent to employ a double standard.

Given that line of reasoning logic, so did Geraldine Ferraro.

How stupid do you think we are, Donald?

I find it bizarre that people are digging through Obama's paster's sermons and writing for the last 40 years, and judging Obama by them, when we don't have a clue if the other candidates, professed Christians that they are, even have a regular church that they attend, let alone the names of their ministers.

It's one thing when Ferraro repeatedly and with great deliberation sticks her foot in her mouth on every media venue who will schedule her.

It is another thing to spend dozens of hours digging through some paster's sermons over the last decade with the intent of finding some snippets to sling at a parish-member.

Nice political process we have.

Mr. Wright's staements are inflammatory mainly because of their manner of presentation. Didn't Ron Paul say some of the same things about Chickens Coming Home to Roost?

Now, the delightful way in which Jeremiah Wright did his hand flutter, demonstrating chickens squawking in furious flight - I thought the dear Reverends theatrics on this particular subject were utterly entertaining. Maybe Barack was there for the show - a pretty good freebie in my opinion, and a nice change from the monotony of the Senate.

Anyway, there is a bit of good news in the current inquisition. Sean Hannity can never claim Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. The liberation theologian pastor brought Barack to Jesus! Though with a fuck faced moron like Hannity, who knows, maybe BHC is a secret Muslim liberation theologian devotee of Helder Camara, using Austan Goolsbee and Jesus for cover.

Wright's statements were dumb and will definitely hurt Obama.

But Obama's been pretty good so far in distancing himself from Wright, even appearing on Fox News in what looked like some sort of criminal proceeding (it really was awful Fox "journalism" at its best). Not sure if he's done enough to get past this "controversy" yet, but he's got plenty of time to do so.

That's kinda the silver-lining in all of this though. All of the spots where Obama could be vulnerable in the general election are getting a thorough going-over now in the primary. The last chink in the armor is his relationship with Rezko. If he gets over that hump, there's not a whole lot left to attack.

I still wish this primary fight would end though. Pennsylvania is still pretty far out, and we got more debates on the way. Seriously, is there anything left for them to talk about in these debates? We get it, Hillary's health care plan has mandates, Obama's does not (except for children). Obama was against the war in Iraq, Hillary voted for it. That about cover it?

Imagine if there was a blogosphere when the Paula Jones brouhaha became public in '92.

"I hope he can overcome this, but I don't see how at this point."

Steve LaBonne: "How stupid do you think we are, Donald?"

"I don't think about it one way or the other. But if you want, give me a day or two, and I'll get back to you." -- Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson), Chinatown (1974)

"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schöpenhauer, German philosopher (1788-1860)

minion: unless Obama can somehow explain this connection without equivocation or spin as he has so far. How can Obama claim with a straight face that "God Damn America!!!" or the govt invented aids to commit genocide were outside the "tenor" of this man's preaching -- if they were there would have been a collective gasp from the parisioners, not jocular cheering.
I see Wright as the Michael Vick of religion, so far given a pass because of the soft bigotry of low expectations. I suspect Obama kept his relationship with the church primarily at his wife's insistence, an unreconstructed limosine liberal who I believe was a member of the church when she met him. I hope he can overcome this, but I don't see how at this point.

Jeez, panic much? And people wonder why Dems can't win elections. It'd be one thing if these were clips of Obama saying "God Damn America" but it's his preacher.

Hell, Falwell claimed 9/11 was God's punishment for America's sinful ways, yet John McCain, and EVERY Republican candidate, kissed his ring and sought his endorsement before he kicked the bucket (Nevermind the fact that if 9/11 was an act of God, that would make the terrorists instruments of God, and if they were instruments of God, why on earth are we fighting them....logic obviously wasn't Falwell's strong suit). If the Republicans can win by actively seeking the endorsement of such people, surely Obama will be ok by distancing himself from them as he has done.

broken: "It is another thing to spend dozens of hours digging through some paster's sermons over the last decade with the intent of finding some snippets to sling at a parish-member."

Sorry to dissuade you from that rather comforting thought and politically mitigating notion, but unfortunately for Sen. Obama, no such "digging" through" the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's archives is really necessary.

As I understood from one of shortstop's posts last night in another thread last night, the good pastor is not exactly one to keep a low-profile, and thus was not an unknown quantity or obscure figure, particularly in Chicago. The Trinity United Church of Christ actually offers DVDs and videotapes of the Rev. Wright's fiery sermons for sale, akin to marketing a recording artist's "Greatest Hits" compilation.

Joe: "It'd be one thing if these were clips of Obama saying 'God Damn America' but it's his preacher."

Please read the following:

Chicago Tribune | January 21, 2007
REV. JEREMIAH A. WRIGHT, JR.: Pastor inspires Obama's 'audacity' -- "When he took over Trinity United Church of Christ in 1972, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. was a maverick pastor with a wardrobe of dashikis and a militant message. Six years later, he planted a 'Free South Africa' sign on the lawn of his church and asked other local religious leaders to follow his lead. None took him up on the invitation. The sign stayed until the end of apartheid -- long enough to catch the eye of a young Barack Obama, who visited the church in 1985 as a community activist. Obama, was not a churchgoer at the time, but he found himself returning to the sanctuary of Trinity United. In Wright he had found both a spiritual mentor and a role model."

(Emphasis mine.)

Please also take note of the date this Tribune article first appeared.

As Obama apparently told the Tribune's religion reporter, Manya A. Brachear, the primary backdrop for his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention was supposedly Wright's sermon, "Audacity to Hope," which also served as the inspiration for Sen. Obama's most recent book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Therefore, it's fairly clear that Sen. Obama not only made little attempt to distance himself from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (until required by recent political circumstances to do so), he actually embraced the man as a mentor:

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics." -- Sen. Barack Obama

Ouch.

Damn, am I the only person who remembers this? I'm sure this point has been made somewhere and I'm just redundant. But still.

What I want Obama to explain before I can be satisfied and comfortable with the idea of having him be my candidate for President of the United States is: What is this BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY that The Trinity Church and Pastor Wright advocate as its principal doctrine? And, what affect would/does the implication of this doctrine have on me --a white person -- and on non-black persons in general? I know that Obama has explained that he does not look to Pastor Wright for his "political" views. But does not the very concept of "liberation theology" -- black or otherwise, by its nature, include a political component? I know that the Catholic Church, the Pope that is, has denounced and rejected the concept of "liberation theology" as practiced or applied to South America principally because of its necessarily POLITICAL component.
So, I ask, why should I be reassured that "black liberation theology" as advocated by Obama's Trinity Church and its founding Pastor Wright is merely a non-political expression of personal faith? Mr. Obama, is "Black Liberation Theology" as you see it something that, without question, rightfully deserves the Consitutional protection of separation of Church and State?

Given Pastor Wright's vile rantings and wild hate mongerings as now exposed by the media, if BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY is political in some aspects of its practice, I need a blue print of its political ramnifications before I can comfortably put my faith in Barack Obama.

Donald: They both essentially amount to the same thing, in that such committee positions are used primarily by major campaigns for public relations purposes. [...] the members of a finance committee lend their names for purposes of fundraising.

Whatever the usual practice, it is very clear that Ferraro and Rev. Wright had very different level of involvement in the respective campaigns. Reverend White has not been doing interviews on television, radio, and for newspapers on behalf of the Obama campaign. Were it not for a few throw-away lines from Obama crediting the Reverend for his guidance or for people going back and digging up past sermons, your average voter would never had heard of him. The reverse cannot be said of Ferraro.

Ferraro followed up her incendiary remarks with a very public counter-offensive, as did Clinton's campaign manager Maggie "obstruct justice by removing the incriminating files from a crime scene" Williams.

Also, Clinton's official, initial response basically indicated only generic regret that 'both sides' sometimes say unfortunate things - hardly a clear statement of responsibility, apology or even regret at the incident. (More of a 'circle the wagons' approach than Obama who unambiguously distanced himself from Wright).

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics." -- Sen. Barack Obama

Donald: Ouch.

"Ouch" what? What in Wright's comments suggest he wouldn't be good at doing precisely what Obama said he was good at, namely being a sounding board to cut through bullsh*t?

If anything, I would think it's fairly apparent that Reverend Wright's problem is that he's a little too honest for polite, white society. I mean, can you believe the audacity of suggesting that nuking two cities would create bad karma for America!?

Hillary Clinton should just be thankful he wasn't referencing a much more deadly US war crimes, namely the enforcement of sanctions against Iraq under the Clinton administration which contributed to the death of perhaps 350,000 children and up to 1.5 million Iraqis overall.

[Who wants to bet that most of the Hillary supporters who are taking offense at the suggestion that Bill Clinton committed war crimes have been more than comfortable accusing the current administration of the same?]

It's no surprise that Hillary and her supporters seem to be sharing the same kind of faux outrage at even the faintest suggestions that America is not flawless that the Republicans do.

Fortunately for Hillary, there's a large percentage of Americans who only want to hear and believe the bullshit, government party-line vision of America as forever and always without sin (except for the opposing political party and opponents within their own party who are all evil).

surely obama's denounce the statement but not repudiate the man approach is at one with his stated political creed: to be able to see good in and work with people he might disagree with fundamentally. framed like this, could it not even be turned into a plus?

(Unidentified): "Were it not for a few throw-away lines from Obama crediting the Reverend for his guidance ..."

Then as an ambitious politician aspiring to high office, Sen. Obama ought to be far more careful about what he "throws away" rhetorically, lest he appear both fulsome and calculating.

(Unidentified): "If anything, I would think it's fairly apparent that Reverend Wright's problem is that he's a little too honest for polite, white society. I mean, can you believe the audacity of suggesting that nuking two cities would create bad karma for America!?"

While I can agree with your general sentiment that the U.S. over the course of its turbulent history has often fallen painfully short of its oft-professed ideals, that's clearly not what's at issue here.

Rather, once again, Sen. Barack Obama is caught talking all too eloquently out of both sides of his mouth. In January 2007, he's just full of praise for his pastor in that Chicago Tribune; a mere fourteen months later, he blogs on The Huffington Post that he can't vehemently state strong enough his retrospective disagreement with the good reverend's incindiary rhetoric, and then proceeds to toss the guy under his own campaign's bus.

As I said: Ouch. But you gave it a game effort, and I have to applaud you for it.

All the same, though, while it might well be empowering psychlogically to flip off and and riff on "The Man", and occasionally quite useful when selectively and strategically employed, I really fail to see how Rev. Wright's theatrically vengeful jeremiads will advance anyone's cause.

Look, I'm not going to doubt the man's heart here. I believe that the Rev. Wright's inner child is probably a very decent and caring individual in possession of a highly-developed and well-attuned sense of social justice.

That said, Rev. Wright's overemotive rage is pure schtick -- religious vaudeville, as it were, simultaneously inciteful and alienating, sometimes entertaining, but ultimately ineffectual. He's become a caricature literally preaching to his own choir as his own best lampoon.

Joe,

I can only hope you're right, that I'm overreacting to this, but my instincts say this is not something that will blow over. What bothers me more than the comments or the association is the incompetence of handling this issue - Obama has raised a quarter of a billion dollars, didn't he do some oppo research on himself to realize these comments would come out somehow, and that he needed to preempt them? And now he tries to say the comments were cherry picked and he was shocked, shocked to find out anti-American rhetoric was occurring there.
It seems to me the wheels have come off Obama's campaign since Ohio/Texas - first he panics and fires an aide for calling Hillary a monster, he's allowed Hillary to get away with her chuzpah setting the terms of the debate on momentum and offerring him the VP spot, and now this floundering on an issue he should have dealt with months ago. For the first time I'm worried that Hillary might win.

Reverend Wright is a significant problem for Obama and could be a fatal one if not in the primary (given where he sits right now, although I am not so confident of that that I would bet on it) in the general election. Why? Simple.

First off, there are a LOT of prior writings from Obama between his books and his public statements in the past about how important Reverend Wright was to his spiritual growth and bringing him to Jesus in the first place. This man married him and his children were baptized by Wright as I understand it. There is the fact that Obama knew Wright's sermons were controversial when he announced his candidacy for the Presidential nomination when he told Wright he could not be there because his sermons could be a bit rough (which certainly shows an awareness by Obama that Wright was on the incendiary side of things then) yet continued to keep a close personal relationship to Wright and speak well of the man and his work until extremely recently. There is this idea that Obama is using in his current defence that he was unaware of any of this stuff until it hit the media/news this past week which is patently absurd in part because of what I said in the prior sentence but also because it is hard to believe he never heard about any of these sermons from others within his church even if he wasn't present for any of them himself (Obama had better be telling the full truth here, because I guarantee that if there is any evidence that shows this to be a lie that it will massively boomerang on him, if the GOP can make such a big deal out of Kerry and the time of crossing the Cambodian border around Christmas as they did last election in talking about a decades old event they certainly will be able to do something on events much more current than that, it also reminds me a lot of Gary Hart's just follow me misstep in the 80s) given the prominence of this man's work within his church.

The idea that this is equivalent to any of the Clinton surrogates/supporters that have been used to great effect over the past few months to paint HRC as a race baiter (with the exception of Bill himself, and I have never agreed that he was race baiting to the disagreement of many here) is nonsense given the massive personal relationship over the past two decades between Wright and Obama. I find it interesting that he is using the same downplaying of that lengthy relationship that he tried to use to protect himself from his 17 year long relationship (and friendship as Obama has recently noted in his latest attempts to deal with the Rezco fallout) by characterizing it as a few hours of legal work and nothing more when it was blatantly more than that as subsequent events have shown. Now he is trying to minimize his relationship with Wright, this despite the many examples from Obama's own writings and speeches of a much closer and personal relationship. It will not work unless the media chooses to let it work, and while I might have expected that a few weeks ago these days I am far less convinced that the media is willing to overlook the massive contradictions between what Obama says now and what he said only a few months to a few years ago.

There is another component though to the Obama defence that needs to be considered, and that is Obama is throwing Wright essentially under the bus only now that his comments have been seen and broadcast in the national media, this despite the evidence that Obama did know these comments existed well before then (as I said, he refused to have Wright at his candidacy announcement because he knew of Wright's "rough" behaviour/sermons which indicates a clear awareness of at least some of this despite his current claims of total ignorance until the media showed them to him this week) because only now is the relationship to Wright more politically damaging for Obama than it was helpful in the past. If Obama is willing to throw someone so close and important to him and his career under the bus when it becomes politically inconvenient what does this say about Obama's true personal character? What does it say about his integrity? Nothing good I would argue. It also has the appearance of Obama being a classic politician and undercuts his core message of being different, being principles, and being post racial issues (which given the sermons of Wright and the clear enthusiastic agreement we see from the audience/congregation listening when Wright is speaking to those issues is now seriously in question) which is the basis of his candidacy, he loses that and what else does he have to sell his reason for being President? Little to nothing I would argue, and it goes back to a question I raised at this blog a couple of months ago, if Obama's message is somehow neutralized what else does he bring to recommend him to the Presidency, to which I said I saw little and I was laughed at by some here for thinking this could even happen.

This is something Obama is going to have problems with, to my mind the only question is it something he can recover from or will it cripple his chances to win if not the nomination the general election. I do think it will do massive damage to him in the GE, and worse, to the Democratic Party brand and I do not see how he can truly separate himself from Wright at this late date only when it becomes a major political scandal/headache for him given the evidence that he was aware of at least some of this problem in 2007 when he announced his candidacy, let alone the difficulty in believing he was unaware of any of this until the national media told him this past week about it. We are talking about the spiritual advisor to Obama for the past 2 decades, not just some preacher who endorsed him or a campaign worker/surrogate, this is a primary influence on Obama's thinking and spiritual views for many years and that is about as close a relationship as a spouse is, and most people understand that without having to be told that, which is why this able to be as damaging as I have suggested and why a simple denouncement and rejection now at this late date is not going to be anywhere near enough to deal with this, indeed that it may well not be possible to deal with. The time to separate himself was when he started running for President and denouncing his extremism then, to do so now only when it becomes this kind of political scandal to him at this late date is going to be seen as old style political expediency.

I said all along I saw Obama as the same kind of old school politician and not this new way kind of man his rhetoric his candidacy and speeches suggested, and I expect this business with Wright will be seen by many as the final proof of that for many outside of the hard core Obama supporter. I also find this sudden concern by the Obama campaign and supporters to not hold the candidate responsible for the statements of his/her supporters more than a little disgusting given how much the Obama campaign has made of anything they could attach to a Clinton supporter has been central to their attacks on that campaign. Yet again I see Obama talking one thing while his supporters do the opposite. This was exactly what I watched over the last couple of months that turned me from questioning whether he was a safe/strong/good candidate to being actively disgusted and horrified by him and seeing him as the best chance for the Dems to lose in the General Election.

One last thing on another topic of the past week, Ferraro’s comments pointed out not just Obama being black but being a man as well, I found it curious how many people managed to totally ignore that element in her comments about how lucky Obama was, that his gender was as important to her critique as his skin colour. The inability of people to recognize that it was as much about gender as race shows yet again this curious double standard between being concerned about perceived racism by someone versus perceived sexism/misogyny. That said, I do think she went over the top in her defence of her statements, but I think it is important to note that point about how her point about his gender was totally ignored while claiming she was solely saying he was lucky because he was black given that it was in the same section of her comments that had so many angered by her.

There are many things to be said about Rev. Wright's remarks (some of which I agree with). Minion, Donald in Hawaii and Scotian have said them very well.

But the basic point is this: Obama's been listening to these sermons, and taking his children to hear them, for many years. He's known their content since forever. Regardless of how much he (or I) agrees or disagrees with this or that aspect of Wright's views, any rationally consequent observer of the American political scene since, oh, 1968 to pick a convenient date, has to understand that nobody expressing them stands any chance whatsoever of winning a national election.

Obama should have let the church and/or started lying about Wright a long time ago. Today's lies only underscore how little we actually know about him.

Hello, President McCain. I hope you're not as crazy as I fear.

minion: Out of retirement...

A Republican who can't keep a promise. That's new.

for one comment only...

Then two, then three....

A Republican who's a flat-out liar. That's new.

You swore never to post again if Blue Girl said the word. She said the word, you said goodbye, no one could be bothered to see you to the door. Remember?

I despise this crap about, "Well the right-wing gets away with it's crazy preachers so why shouldn't the left?"

What?!?! If anyone typing that, who's a Democrat, actually stopped and thought about what they wrote they'd be appalled.

1) Presumably you really really dislike some of these disgustingly extreme preachers such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hagee etc. And you have thought it reflected horribly on the affiliation - weaker, shorter than Wright's with Obama.

2) As usual, shouldn't we expect better?

3) Yes we should, and while Wright's situation RE Obama is slightly more complex you have to be willfully ignoring the obvious lies in Obama's statements to get to where you really want to be - in a state of ignorant bliss. 20 years. Sermon was DEc. 2007, not "after I started my campaign."

>> your average voter would never had heard of him. The reverse cannot be said of Ferraro.

Not defending Ferarro's dumbness but i didn't even know she was a Hillary supporter until the comments in a small weekly were distributed globally. Heck, sad to say, I hadn't thought about her, period.

The Rev. Wright's name I knew because he is much more central to Obama himself as a person.

Also, that sign for Free South Africa example up there is a bad one. I don't think that's controversial in the slightest in a Democratic (big D) arena. Ending apartheid was a worthy goal no matter where it came from. Holding the reverse opinion was pretty much reviled etc. etc.

- Temple

That said, Rev. Wright's overemotive rage is pure schtick -- religious vaudeville, as it were, simultaneously inciteful and alienating, sometimes entertaining, but ultimately ineffectual. He's become a caricature literally preaching to his own choir as his own best lampoon.

I don't disagree, but would rather emphasize that this is true for most preachers and religion in general.

But for your average person of faith, it's always the OTHER denominations or other religions that seem crazy, not their own.

Mormons have magic underwear, spirit babies, and Jesus sailing up the Mississippi; Scientologists have space alien Thetans and other kooky buzzwords; Christians have a zombie carpenter while Catholics insist on ritualized cannibalism and vampirism. But yeah, I guess it's also absurd when a black preacher in a black church talks about the real world like racism, war, and how that might impact God's blessing or wrath.

Reverend Wright's comments aren't far from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming sinful Liberals for 9/11 and hurricane Katrina, though he seemed to be talking more about collective national guilt rather than conveniently blaming extreme stereotypes of members of an opposing political party.

I wonder whether we are just seeing a very select slice of Rev. Wright. Here is the Audacity of Hope sermon for example. It's very good:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html

Senator Obama is facing deserved scrutiny and an important test of leadership in which we must focus on the larger historical context of the controversy.

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/barack-obama-condemns-reverend-jeremiah.html

From Donald:

Please read the following:
Chicago Tribune | January 21, 2007
REV. JEREMIAH A. WRIGHT, JR.: Pastor inspires Obama's 'audacity' -- "When he took over Trinity United Church of Christ in 1972, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. was a maverick pastor with a wardrobe of dashikis and a militant message. Six years later, he planted a 'Free South Africa' sign on the lawn of his church and asked other local religious leaders to follow his lead. None took him up on the invitation. The sign stayed until the end of apartheid -- long enough to catch the eye of a young Barack Obama, who visited the church in 1985 as a community activist. Obama, was not a churchgoer at the time, but he found himself returning to the sanctuary of Trinity United. In Wright he had found both a spiritual mentor and a role model."
(emphasis mine)

And?? Wow, Obama went to a church that openly supported ending apartheid in South Africa, how terrible of him...??? Seriously, what's your problem with that?

As Obama apparently told the Tribune's religion reporter, Manya A. Brachear, the primary backdrop for his keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention was supposedly Wright's sermon, "Audacity to Hope," which also served as the inspiration for Sen. Obama's most recent book, "The Audacity of Hope."

Again...and?? Have you even read or heard Wright's "Audacity of Hope" sermon? Take a gander at the text here. Nothing militant or "bad" about it. And if I were religious, I might even consider it inspiring.

Therefore, it's fairly clear that Sen. Obama not only made little attempt to distance himself from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (until required by recent political circumstances to do so), he actually embraced the man as a mentor:

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics." -- Sen. Barack Obama

Ouch.

I'm not really sure what your point is...is it that Obama is really a militant black in disguise? That he agrees with Wright when Wright said "God Damn America"? Stop dancing around whatever it is you're dancing around and say it.

Presumably the worst of Rev. Wright's comments are contained in the TV blitz of the last few days.

I would bet that if we examined his sermons over thirty years the vast bulk of them would be on Christian themes. Many with Christian themes and a leftist bent as in Liberation Theology.

Social Justice is the overarching theme I see.

I really find it very annoying that commenters here are so quick to call him a racist hatemonger. There does not seem to be any evidence of that in the UCC teachings. None. There is a clear leftist bent which progressives should like.

It is also quite possible that the man has recently started to lose his marbles. The comments on Hillary would fit that evaluation.

Also check out the Chicago Tribune editorial today. Highly complementary to Obama I think.

Obama seems to be the kind of guy who is open to a variety of people with varied persuasions and tries to find the best in each. Not someone who jumps to condemn but rather to find common ground. I'm not jumping ship; you others who are troubled shouldn't either.

Jethro: But the basic point is this: Obama's been listening to these sermons, and taking his children to hear them, for many years. He's known their content since forever.

You're making the jump that all of his sermons are the same, when it's plain as day that that is not the case. Wright's been preaching for 30+ years, and recording his sermons for a long time now. And you can bet that all those recordings are being reviewed at this moment. And so far we've only heard a handful of dumb statements. I encourage you to review his "The Audacity of Hope" sermon and tell me what's so offensive about it.

I don't agree with either but how was Wright's post 9/11 sermon any different than Robertson & Falwell remarks on 9/11? All 3 were using 9/11 to push their own agenda. I think they are all wrong but to be outraged at Wright and not at Falwell & Robertson is just pure hypocrisy. When you wingnuts disavow the religious right, then I'll listen to your opinions on what's un-American.

Comments from the Thursday, September 13, 2001 edition of the '700 Club.'

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

Joe, the issue here is not Rev. Wright; he's a buffoon and he's resigned from the Obama campaign, so that's over and done with.

Further, that puff piece from the Tribune appeared over 14 months ago, and current events have clearly rendered that relatively flattering profile of the good pastor obsolete.

But as I said upthread, and it bears repeating: Once again, the opportunistic Mr. Obama has been caught in classic political double-talk. In January 2007, he's publicly embracing his minister of 20 years as a mentor; in March 2008 he's condemning the very same man for his remarks over the years, and feigning shock that the reverend could have ever said such hurtful, controversial things from the pulpit.

Well, if Obama managed to miss all of that while he and his family are nominally active members of the Trinity congregation, a second question simply begs to be asked: Does Obama himself even really GO to the church -- or was he dozing his way through Sunday services the way I've been known to do occasionally at Sunday mass?

And if it's the latter, a third question to him must naturally follow: Dude, how in the world could you catch any Zzz's while the Rev. Wright's mouth was blazing at full throttle?

Although Obama's public repudiation of Wright's statements is recent, Obama started distancing himself from Wright in early Feb 2007, when Wright's scheduled invocation at Obama's presidential campaign announcement was cancelled (e.g., see here).

Donald,

Read the "Audacity of Hope" sermon by the guy you call a nut. See what you think of that. It's simply a wonderful peice of Christian reflection.

We are being taken for a ride by the Fox News machine. Yes, he has sometimes used inflammatory language. Heck Ron Paul said essentially the same thing about 911.

The parent UCC church which is a predominantly White church would not have sanctioned his continuing tenure if there was any racist theme to that Chicago congregation.

I would guess that the vast bulk of his sermons are Christianity 101. We will find out, I have no doubt.

Obama isn't an idiot. I think we've seen the worst. Now who really fed this to was it NBC? Hmm, was it perhaps Mark Penn? Good though, better hash this out now while Hillary is still around.

Thanks to Joe for providing the link. I'm with you. Someone took the trouble to run through all his sermons to find the worst. Hopefully it isn't the Clinton campaign.

What pisses me off is how the "progressives" on this blog have swallowed the Hannity take on this hook line and sinker.

If there is a bright side to this personally, it is that revulsion for the Republicans is back. For a while, after the Ferraro thing I couldn't stomach voting for Clinton if she somehow got this nomination. No longer.

From Donald:

Once again, the opportunistic Mr. Obama has been caught in classic political double-talk. In January 2007, he's publicly embracing his minister of 20 years as a mentor; in March 2008 he's condemning the very same man for his remarks over the years, and feigning shock that the reverend could have ever said such hurtful, controversial things from the pulpit.
Well, if Obama managed to miss all of that while he and his family are nominally active members of the Trinity congregation, a second question simply begs to be asked: Does Obama himself even really GO to the church -- or was he dozing his way through Sunday services the way I've been known to do occasionally at Sunday mass?

I don't see where there is double-talk though. He is without a doubt close with Wright, but doesn't agree with these inflammatory comments, simple as that. I have family members that have said some dumb shit over the years that I completely disagree with, but that doesn't mean I don't love them or look to them for guidance in certain situations. Even in the Fox News interview, Obama made clear that he wasn't rejecting Wright, he was rejecting Wright's comments.

And as to Obama's Church attendance, he states in that same Fox interview that he was a regular attendee in spurts. I doubt very much that's he's been able to attend regularly since becoming a US Senator, and would think there would be times when he was unable to attend before that.

The most important thing though is how Obama viewed Wright and the Trinity Church. Did he view it as radical and militant and embrace those views? Or did he view it as a spiritual place that could make a difference in the community? Obama's record and message has absolutely no similarity to anything remotely militant or radical. And I have no reason to believe that Obama embraced the church for any reason other than its spiritual message and ability to do good in the community.

It helps that Wright has retired, but what is the new guy like?

The more I read about this church, the more I feel it is the victim of a heinously unfair assault.

And shame on those here who cannot make the effort to find out more about both Rev. Wright and the UCC prior to swallowing the Media line.

Donald from Hawaii: As I understood from one of shortstop's posts last night in another thread last night, the good pastor is not exactly one to keep a low-profile, and thus was not an unknown quantity or obscure figure, particularly in Chicago.

I didn't say that. I said we here in Chicago are more than used to the sort of show Rev. Wright puts on. We're never surprised when some local religious or political figure, black or white, goes for that kind of hysterical drama in the pulpit or at the podium. I knew of Wright because--well, I have reasons to pay attention to stuff like that--but I wouldn't say he's a major figure in town or that most people here even knew who he was until this week.

Joe at 7:25 PM says:
“The most important thing though is how Obama viewed Wright and the Trinity Church. Did he view it as radical and militant and embrace those views? Or did he view it as a spiritual place that could make a difference in the community? Obama's record and message has absolutely no similarity to anything remotely militant or radical. And I have no reason to believe that Obama embraced the church for any reason other than its spiritual message and ability to do good in the community.�

I agree that the important thing is how Obama views Wright and his Church. But, I feel that I have too little knowledge about Obama to be able to tell why he has so strongly embraced his troubling church. And, a lot of "smoke" encircles his camp now. Where there is smoke there is fire -- maybe.
We Democrats need to take a very long and deep second look at the candidacy of Barack Obama before our nomination process is in the tank. My very fleeting research into what the Trinity Church stood for (looking in on its website and listening to its “Mission Statement� video) revealed that their professed mission is the propagation of “black liberation theology� coupled with a “celebration of their African roots.� According to their “Mission� video, the basic teachings of The Trinity Church is that the Bible substantiates that “people of color� are the “chosen people.� As trumpeted by Pastor Wright in his sermons, writings and actions, (i.e., the prominent Farrakhan admiration), apparently, the furthering their mission -- their basic philosophy of black liberation theology plus celebration of African roots -- manifests in a 1960ish-style, very divisive, struggle of black power over white supremacy.
Thus, the key question we have to ask in deciding what importance to assign to Obama's long-time and deeply rooted association with Pastor Wright and his church is: to what extent, if any, is the prominently stated mission of the Trinity Church and its basic philosophy of black liberation theology and celebration of African roots and the manifestation of a return to a1960ish-style black power struggle, a more accurate reflection of Barack Obama's actual "Weltanschauung" (world and life view), than is Barack Obama's campaign message of change and unity and end of divisiveness’ that he is running on.

To me, the professed mission of the Trinity Church and its apparent return to a 1960ish view of a biblically inspired struggle of black power over white supremacy and Barack Oboma’s stated campaign positions are necessarily inconsistent. I find his long-standing, deeply rooted relationship to his church very, very troubling indeed, and I fervently hope that the Democratic Party has shortsightedly and prematurely locked itself in with a candidate who is yet too unvetted and maybe too flawed to be able to deliver the White House in 2009. I pray, there is still opportunity and time to consider, and reconsider, our choice. Please consider the following:

DEMOCATIC Voters
As things now stand, especially if the Trinity Church/Pastor Wright flap is left hanging, a huge segment of the core Democratic voters would NOT vote for Obama (a far larger segment than those who say they would not vote for Hillary),. At the GE, their choices would be: 1) Vote for McCain, or 2) Abstain. The ones voting for McCain would give McCain the margin to win.

INDEPENDENT Voters
Independent voters are, well, independent! That means: they are a fluid constituency; they are not monolithic; they are not partisan; by and large, they tend to vote for what they think is best for America. With the information we now have (and prejudices that exist), given a choice between Obama and McCain, Independents would heavily lean towards McCain. Whereas, Hillary is positioned well to be attractive to Independents.

REPUBLICAN Voters
With the Wright rantings exposed, forget about Obama getting the votes of those “disillusioned� cross-over Republicans. Those votes are gone for Obama! On the other hand, Hillary is likely to be able to attract a sizeable number of those votes, particularly if the economy remains a big issue.

Joe at 7:25 PM says:
“The most important thing though is how Obama viewed Wright and the Trinity Church. Did he view it as radical and militant and embrace those views? Or did he view it as a spiritual place that could make a difference in the community? Obama's record and message has absolutely no similarity to anything remotely militant or radical. And I have no reason to believe that Obama embraced the church for any reason other than its spiritual message and ability to do good in the community.�

I agree that the important thing is how Obama views Wright and his Church. But, I feel that I have too little knowledge about Obama to be able to tell why he has so strongly embraced his troubling church. And, a lot of "smoke" encircles his camp now. Where there is smoke there is fire -- maybe.
We Democrats need to take a very long and deep second look at the candidacy of Barack Obama before our nomination process is in the tank. My very fleeting research into what the Trinity Church stood for (looking in on its website and listening to its “Mission Statement� video) revealed that their professed mission is the propagation of “black liberation theology� coupled with a “celebration of their African roots.� According to their “Mission� video, the basic teachings of The Trinity Church is that the Bible substantiates that “people of color� are the “chosen people.� As trumpeted by Pastor Wright in his sermons, writings and actions, (i.e., the prominent Farrakhan admiration), apparently, the furthering their mission -- their basic philosophy of black liberation theology plus celebration of African roots -- manifests in a 1960ish-style, very divisive, struggle of black power over white supremacy.
Thus, the key question we have to ask in deciding what importance to assign to Obama's long-time and deeply rooted association with Pastor Wright and his church is: to what extent, if any, is the prominently stated mission of the Trinity Church and its basic philosophy of black liberation theology and celebration of African roots and the manifestation of a return to a1960ish-style black power struggle, a more accurate reflection of Barack Obama's actual "Weltanschauung" (world and life view), than is Barack Obama's campaign message of change and unity and end of divisiveness’ that he is running on.

To me, the professed mission of the Trinity Church and its apparent return to a 1960ish view of a biblically inspired struggle of black power over white supremacy and Barack Oboma’s stated campaign positions are necessarily inconsistent. I find his long-standing, deeply rooted relationship to his church very, very troubling indeed, and I fervently hope that the Democratic Party has shortsightedly and prematurely locked itself in with a candidate who is yet too unvetted and maybe too flawed to be able to deliver the White House in 2009. I pray, there is still opportunity and time to consider, and reconsider, our choice. Please consider the following:

DEMOCATIC Voters
As things now stand, especially if the Trinity Church/Pastor Wright flap is left hanging, a huge segment of the core Democratic voters would NOT vote for Obama (a far larger segment than those who say they would not vote for Hillary),. At the GE, their choices would be: 1) Vote for McCain, or 2) Abstain. The ones voting for McCain would give McCain the margin to win.

INDEPENDENT Voters
Independent voters are, well, independent! That means: they are a fluid constituency; they are not monolithic; they are not partisan; by and large, they tend to vote for what they think is best for America. With the information we now have (and prejudices that exist), given a choice between Obama and McCain, Independents would heavily lean towards McCain. Whereas, Hillary is positioned well to be attractive to Independents.

REPUBLICAN Voters
With the Wright rantings exposed, forget about Obama getting the votes of those “disillusioned� cross-over Republicans. Those votes are gone for Obama! On the other hand, Hillary is likely to be able to attract a sizeable number of those votes, particularly if the economy remains a big issue.

shortstop: "I didn't say that. I said we here in Chicago are more than used to the sort of show Rev. Wright puts on."

Thank you for clarifying my misunderstanding. I was going off my memory when I wrote that. I went back and re-read with greater care what you initially wrote on Friday, and I stand corrected. My apologies.

Manfred: "Read the 'Audacity of Hope' sermon by the guy you call a nut."

When did I call Rev. Wright a "nut"?

Now, I freely admit that I called him a "buffoon", and a "caricature [who is] his own best lampoon" -- but never a "nut".

And if you really paid attention, you'd have noted that I also said that I thought "the Rev. Wright's inner child is probably a very decent and caring individual in possession of a highly-developed and well-attuned sense of social justice."

I mean really, dude -- how do you read all that and still say that I called him a "nut"?

Don't put words in others' mouths. That's what Republicans do.