The idea is to make you crawl, and to make your friends wonder if you can help them.

Didn't work. FOX News was on this all night last night.

Still didn't work.

[Tom Friedman]

Suck on this.

[/Tom Friedman]
.

I agree with Moff. The conservatives have once again succeeded in bitch-slapping a Democratic leader.

The liberal pundit class, if one exists, has never been able to bring any Republican to such a humiliating posture, no matter how egregious his failing.

If one were to decide one's ideological affiliation solely on the basis of non-wussiness, there would be no liberals left on the planet.

I think you're really wrong about Smantha Power.

Do you think Hillary Clinton is a "monster"?

Whether you're an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter, as Democrats, Hillary Clinton is broadly in our camp. To use a word like "monster" for someone who is in our camp, to me, is beyond the pale. If Obama wasn't nominated, we'd all be voting for Hillary. Calling he a monster is Republican-speak, plain and simple.

Please do better next time, Kevin.

On balance, I'll bet most voters would have thought better of him if he'd defended her instead of casting her loose.

—Kevin Drum

Strongly agree. He should have just used that great sense of humor of his and said, "Oh, c'mon, she calls everyone who disagrees with her a monster. Even me."

Here's a DKos diary, by me, about the Reverend Wright thing.

Back to the Samantha Power thing: Hillary hasn't done anything to justify her being called a monster. If she had, it would be different. For a Democratic advisor to shoot us all in the foot like this is beyond the pale.

I'm pretty bad at guessing what "most voters" think, but so is Kevin, so I'll just say: I like Obama for a lot of things; I think Power was a good choice for his team (not so much because I agree with her positions, but because she's smart and well-informed, and I think Obama is smart enough to take her interventionism as one of many possible points of view); I thought it was dumb that the "monster" thing became an issue; but I don't think less of Obama for letting her go during the campaign. She's just not great at communicating in this setting, where policy is treated as less important than scoring points in a media game. I can still imagine her as an effective advisor or even diplomat, as long as her role is clear, and I'm sure she will still be involved in his administration.

I think Obama probably wanted to dump Power anyway. She's a good friend, I'm sure, but her foreign policy stance is not exactly where he needs to be to win the general election.

I tend to agree with John Cole on this one. At home this weekend with the parents, with FOX News on in the background the whole time, about the only two things I could get out that were widely agreeable were:

1. John McCain's crazy preacher friends are worse; and

2. It's good to see a politician not throw his friends under the bus (I used exactly the same words, verbatim, as John Cole did, coincidentally).

That said, I pretty much had to agree that Pastor Wright is nuts, and that Obama needed to "have some balls." Though I didn't quite have the balls myself to say what I really thought, which was: "the only reason the hacks at FOX News are going on and on about this Wright thing is because it's impolitic to put 'BREAKING: Obama is... a N*gger!' in the FOX News Ticker."

I'd count myself generally happy with his speech today, fwiw.

A lot of people seem hung up on the fact that he brought his grandmother into the speech. I don't, however, see what he said about her as negative. Yes, he said she made racist remarks, but he also mentioned her love for him. He portrayed her as a human being that had flaws that were common for her time. I didn't see Obama as degrading his grandmother in the speech.

For the record, I agreed with Power's remark, at least in the sense that I thought she probably meant it in -- colloquially, the way you'd complain about some really aggressive and unscrupulous manager at your job who's doing a lot of damage. I didn't think she meant that Hillary is like Hitler or Godzilla or Dracula. Power is demonstrably able to be a lot more eloquent and specific than just "monster" when she's referring to people who have committed truly monstrous crimes, and since she didn't expect (as she should have) that she would actually be quoted on it, it seems like a casual bit of hyperbole.

I agree with Econobuzz that Obama probably could've brushed this one off with a little humor, and a reminder that he hired her for her thoughts about the world, not her opinion of Clinton. But with her other off-the-cuff remarks, there was more of a problem. It's just not a good idea to start talking about Iraq or Gordon Brown during a book tour, when there's not really a chance for substantive discussion and no one is sure whether you're speaking for yourself or the candidate.

I also really respect the fact that Trent Lott didn't just throw Strom Thurmond underneath the bus.

White racism = bad. Black racism = OK. No big deal.

I can't wait until majority-minority America.

Power let slip loose more than just "Hillary is a monster". She backtracked on Obama's promise to get out of Iraq asap. Not that what she said wasn't a realistic assessment of what should be done, but since Obama is using the Iraq war to differentiate himself from Clinton, Power's comments sure ran counter to what his current message is.

I wonder what kind of speech Hillary would have given.

Not "recovering conservative." John Cole is still a conservative; it's not not his fault his party went batshit insane. "Recovering Republican" maybe.

Not "recovering conservative." John Cole is still a conservative; it's not not his fault his party went batshit insane. "Recovering Republican" maybe.

Mitt Romney threw Larry Craig under the bus:

"Once again, we've found people in Washington have not lived up to the level of respect and dignity that we would expect for somebody that gets elected to a position of high influence," Romney told CNBC's Larry Kudlow in a broadcast to be aired later. "Very disappointing. He's no longer associated with my campaign, as you can imagine. ... I'm sorry to see that he has fallen short."

Being fired for letting slip "Hillary is a monster" (which I have thought a few times but never said) taken out of context seems overly tough. Optical wenie, and at least one other here think Powers was already in hot water for lose lips, perhaps she made one too many unauthorized statements.

Its not loyalty I see but Republican hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but calling Hillary a monster is just unacceptable... regardless of the context. can you imagine how many news cycles that comment would have been featured in? Hell, even after he let her resign (he didn't exactly tell her to go) it continued to play.

I respect him for not throwing Wright under the bus, otherwise it would have called into question his faith in his church, which would have been far worse in my opinion. How can you cast aside your spiritual leader of 20 years and not come off as willing to do anything to win? Unfortunately we live in a world where context is rarely applied to anything, particularly matters of race, patriotism, or free speech.

obama is still my second choice, but it has nothing to do with something his preacher said.

I am agnostic on Power because of how she handled herself with the reporter. She didn't say anything resembling backtracking on her Clinton remark, she just asked the reporter not to tell anyone. She didn't say, "that was dumb, I went too far", she said, "that's off the record of course." That means she still thought her remarks were valid, she just didn't want them reported.

I haven't had a chance to listen to Obama yet, it sounds as though Mitt Romney is kicking himself....

Hillary is a monster campaigner. There is no way she could stay in this without gutting the party, and still she stays in, hoping she can undo the damage later. I think Obama should have stuck with Samantha because she is a monster intellect.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done some fascinating work on the moral values of conservatives vs liberals. Both conservatives and liberals agrees that caring for the helpless and justice are important moral principles. But conservatives also regard loyalty to ones group, obedience and respecting the divine as important moral factors whereas they don't even register on the liberal set.

So, yeah, liberals might win some respect with conservatives if they would stand up for their friends. They could also salute the flag often, worship GWB and renounce abortion. It's not going to happen, is it?

As for Hillary being a "monster"--Samantha Powers is a Brit and she was speaking to a Brit. I believe the word has a different emotional nuance over there; It's more like "extraordinary, difficult, tenacious" than "Godzilla/Hitler" but try explaining that to a Clinton supporter.

I agree with you that Powers should not have left. But now if he wins the nomination he can hire her back and the very first question she'll get from the media will be "Is John McCain a monster?" and I'm sure hoping she says YES!

Hillary is a monster campaigner.

If she doesn't make some statement between now and the PA primary to the effect that she discourages white voters to cast their vote for her based on Wright's comments, then she is a monster. She'll get some of their votes anyway, but it would be pretty disgusting to think that a democrat would knowingly accept that vote without acknowledging its wrongheadedness.

The Monsters of Rock tour was canceled.
Bummer.

I think all of this depends on your definition of "bus" - Wright's retired from ministry (or was that "sabbatical" until retirement?), he's "resigned" from Obama's Spiritual Advisory Board, Obama's called his words "stupid" and "the politics of the past"... but you know, he didn't throw Wright under the, um, proverbial bus.

Nosiree.

That he did all of those thngs, and the howlers still haven't been satisfied, does not, I think, mean that Obama showed impressive,oyalty here; given that he's known Wright as long as he has, known his politics and his words for as long as he has... the notion of his his "surprise" and the speed of the distancing kind of gives me pause. Is it not like Samantha Power? I dunno. It's hard for me to see how different this is, ultimately, svering every campaign tie and even getting the man out of his church. Again... I think the question is how one defines "bus."

I also think you're wrong about Samantha Power. You just can't have staffers who are loose cannons and it speaks better of the man that he moved quickly and decisively on the matter. I would have done the same. If he were sitting in the oval office and a staffer referred to some political leader as a "monster" the same thing would have had to happen.

On balance, I'll bet most voters would have thought better of him if he'd defended her instead of casting her loose.

I'll bet you double most voters have already forgotten who Samantha Powers is.

Here's what I said at Yglesias' blog last Friday:

I think Obama's got to walk a fine line here, but if anyone can do it, he's the guy.

First, he can't just 'throw Wright under the bus.' You don't do that to people you've known for 20 years, unless you find out one day that they've been swindling little old ladies or something.

Jeremiah Wright is the same guy he's been. Obama obviously thinks a great deal of him. He can't pretend all that history means nothing, without coming across as completely insincere.

He's got to stand behind Wright as a friend, and as a pastor with a powerful Christian witness. But he does have to disavow, in the strongest terms, Wright's playing of the victim card, of Black identity politics, of the language of division, of us v. them.

He's got to be able to say - accurately - that in his experience as a member of Wright's congregation, this was not something Wright was harping on every Sunday, or he wouldn't have been there.

If it WAS something Wright was harping on every Sunday, that's the point where we Dems throw Obama under the bus, and go with Clinton as the nominee. After all, Fox has bought a set of Wright's sermon tapes - it's too late for bullshit.

So yeah, standing by his friendship with Wright was necessary, even aside from the whole bitch-slap business. But definitely that too.

With respect to Samantha Power, though, who cares? I doubt that one in five Americans know who she is. I'm sure that story is completely forgotten by all the political non-junkies out there. If he wants her in his Administration, nobody's gonna say boo.

Like the song says (aaarrrggh! I'm about to quote Kenny Rogers!), you've got to know when to hold, and know when to fold.

Wright's comments were spoken for his congregation and to large extent, the African American community. As inflammatory as they may've been, they certainly weren't done on Obama's behalf nor was Hilary Clinton the target of his ire.

Power's comments can only be construed as a member of Obama's campaign blasting his opponent, a fellow Democrat, in just another ugly and petty instance of election year politicking.

So he threw his "racist" white grandmother under the bus, noting that she (as Rev Jackson, if memory serves) would get nervous upon seeing a black man on the street, and how he had to cringe when he heard her racist rants. While tossing another little Clinton slur red meet out for the Obama faithful.

As to Rev. Wright, we are to forgive him because he's still stuck in the 50s and 60s with the slings and arrows of very real racism and more of that period, and can't help lashing out from the pulpit, even though Obama is past all of that, and the African Americans still stew about that stuff in the Barber Shops and the Beauty Shops. (no doubt sitrred up about that stuff that Rev Wright spews into the pews.

It was a good speech. It wasn't a great speech. I have no doubt that Obama does not believe in Wright's crap. I don't believe, however, that Obama was not aware that Wright was saying such things --- whether he happened to be in the pews that week or not --- and that, even so, Wright satisfied his spiritual needs. It was a mistake.

Which leads me to the startling conclusion that Obama is not perfect. Wow!

I have since heard the the Rev had claimed HIV was invented by whites to eliminate blacks. So there clearly are at least some statements of his that were well over the line.

I think we are seeing the beginnings of the Republican attack plan. Obama is a wedge for the minority (blacks) to take power. Kinda funny given that their attack plan is always to distort their own actions and attribute it to the opposition. In the Republican case, they have been giving the country to a small elite. If given the choice of the two I would choose Obama any day of the week (and twice on Sunday).

I haven't paid much attention to the Wright flap, so maybe someone can clear something up for me: Does this mean Obama isn't a Muslim? It seems like the nutosphere is up-in-arms over something Obama's Christian pastor said. Does this mean they now believe that he isn't a Muslim or what?

It is all just _so_ confusing.

If she doesn't make some statement between now and the PA primary to the effect that she discourages white voters to cast their vote for her based on Wright's comments, then she is a monster.

Did you fucking listen to the speech, enchirito? He was talking to you too.

It doesn't matter what Obama does the right (and some Hillary supporters) will attack either way. Had he completely thrown Wright under the bus it would make Obama a pussy, since he did not it means he is not fit to be president.

I have to marvel at the mindset that allows someone to read or listen to this:

I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

And hear it as this: So he threw his "racist" white grandmother under the bus

Barry's take on it isn't unusual, sadly--there are people all over the tubes tonight expressing their outrage that Obama should have so "disrespected" his grandma. So many people seem to have been hoping this speech would be all about Obama disavowing Wright and nothing else. Instead they got a thoughtful, measured, balanced and sometimes painful look at the complexities of race and racial resentment on all sides. Damn that Obama for pretending racial issues are complicated and nuanced when we know they're not!

Obama did throw Wright under the bus. On Friday he told an interviewer that if he'd heard Wright "repeat" the statements in the video clips, he would have quit the church.

Screw the howlers. They wouldn't be satisfied if Obama literally threw Wright under a bus. The fact is that most of the hacks running around attacking Obama's speech are batshit insane and utterly dishonest. They are not worth the time to respond. Let the howlers like Rush Limbaugh stew in their own hateful juices.

Did Obama handle the Power firing properly? Probably not, but he has clearly learned. How often do you find that characteristic in a politician. Most of them are utterly incapable of genuine growth.

Today was a great day for America. We actually had a politician talk to us straight from the shoulder. Today made me proud to be an American. It made me proud to be a Democrat.

By contrast, John McCain told an assemble gaggle of reporters and cameramen that Iran was training Al Qaeda. Joe Lieberman had to step in to tell the old fool to correct what he said.

Loyalty is in the eye of the beholder. Obama's speech today was historic. There is no other word for it. He challenged us as a nation - which has not happened since the 1960s. He challenged us to overcome our past and rise above the pettiness and hatred that are the prime motivators of people on the right side of the aisle. How we respond as a united people to this speech, is far, far more important than how Barack Obama responded to the off-the-cuff comments of his ex-pastor.

I'm not sure about the specific case of Samantha Power, much as I like her (is she really such an interventionist? I haven't really got that from her but then I haven't read her book.) Her statements were pretty off-message and undermining to the campaign.

However, in general Kevin and Ron are absolutely right. It's hilarious to see wingers and some TV Hillary surrogates say that the issue won't be over until Obama disowns Rev. Wright. Wrong. It would just get them talking about his weakness. When dealing with those using Rovian tactics, it's head's you lose, tails they win. The only way to win their game is to refuse to play it.

The issue will not be over until the media tires of talking about it and, in fact, the entire problem with the Democratic party over the last decades is the ease with which it not only throws away people but ideas.

In my view, the speech today was perfect. If anyone can sell nuance and intelligence it's Obama. As I just say Jim Wallis say on CNN, the speech and the controversy was a test for Obama, our ultimate reaction is a test for the nation. Are we smart enough to vote for this guy?

Today was a great day for America.

I agree my friend. I've been waiting all my life to see America sit up and take this shit head on. And I salute you Barack, I owe you one bro(and fuck you Obamazooids who think that is racist).

I will continue to support Hillary, though, because I think she will be the better president at this date in time, but you ain't fuckin shabby, Obama. And I would have been proud to have served under you.

To all the Retardicans lurking as Liberals. You ain't slick mother fuckers. The whirlwind is coming for your asses, and unlike your weak minds(and bodies for that matter) I have a plan...

Actually, calling Obama the Dukakis of the 21st century, is Ted Rall says Obama DID throw Wright under the bus.

As for me, Ted Rall aside, in my blog I gave him an A for political points/style etc., but a B/B-minus on substance.

From a comment at alicublog:
"I demand an explanation which under no circumstances will I ever accept".

I wonder if the message is that Sen. Obama will stick up for his family's friends, but not for the people who work for him.

I'm not stating that as a conclusion; I honestly don't know. The Power thing could just have been something that caught Obama by surprise. At any rate, he handled it badly, which matters because if he does get elected President his success will depend a lot more on the people who work for him than it will on the people he knew in Chicago.

I'll bet his campaign is hoping also that after Obama's successful speech, Wright doesn't say anything to step on his message.

Papajijo is right.
Susan who?
If Obama hadn't made her resign it would have gone on and on and caused real damage.

I don't much care whether Obama stands by Wright today. I care mostly about what Obama's 20-year close association with Wright tells us about Obama's beliefs and character.

I do not believe that Obama's shares any of Wright's nutty, anti-American, or racist views. Still, it's disturbing that Obama didn't distance himself and his family from this man long ago.

Zathras, Wright is supposed to be here in Dallas/Fort Worth in a a 10 days, speaking at Texas Christian's Brite Divinity School March 29. The invite had been scheduled, and TCU officially stood behind it today. (Wright was also a guest speaker at TCU in 2001.)

This is DFW, Texas, though... expect wingers to picket TCU.

What is "disturbing", ex-stud, is your inability to answer a simple question. How many deferments did you have during the Vietnam era, old pansy ass man?

AJ Fish has an interesting point... Obama caught in another lie.

I don't care so much that he's just another politician as his whole shtick... that's right, the shtick, is based on claiming he's not. ... We will have the Shtick Talk Expressâ„¢ vs. the Schmuck Talk Expressâ„¢ in the general election. And, I don't even mind that so much as the Obamiacs (obviously illegitimate offspring of the Kossacks, and how's that for snark) who pretend, believe or self-delude he isn't just another politico.

AJ, if you've got a link, I'd love to see it.

elmo, I had a student deferment for a period of time. After than I was deferred because I had a wife and child.

After than I was deferred because I had a wife and child.

Don't you ever call yourself a patriot again. You have no idea what sacrifice is. But you think you do. Pansy.

One observation:
In the last ten minutes of watching the cable news networks, I've heard at least seven commentators on three different networks use the phrase "under the bus," which has now convinced me to foreawear its use for the foreseeable future.

elmo: "[ex-liberal], Don't you ever call yourself a patriot again."

I have no problem with ex-liberal expressing his own patriotism, despite having never served in the armed forces.

My objection arises whenever he dares question the same of those who have, like John Kerry or Daniel Inouye.

I hear you, Duck, chalk "spot on" up there as well. I hear a bunch of chickenhawk Revolution hater Tories whining every time someone writes that...

I have no problem with ex-liberal expressing his own patriotism, despite having never served in the armed forces.

I respect that, I just can't go there. I still realize I need to be objective, though...

"Still, it's disturbing that Obama didn't distance himself and his family from this man long ago."

Why?

And should he also have "distanced" himself and his family from his grandmother?

Talk about falling right into Obama's trap....

vis a vis throwing his grandmother . . .

1) The woman is alive and in her 80's and apparently in ill health
2) She presumably shared certain fears with him in confidence

I personally would never raise my grandmother as a public example of ignorance or bigotry. But kudos for honesty and for opening up the discussion. There is certainly a generational divide in this country and it's largely the changing of the guard that's led to advances in civil rights.

I believe I fundamentally disagree with Obama on race, but his candidacy and presidency (if it gets that far) will force a lot of people to face the issue in the open. That can't be bad.

yes, so uplifting - I always liked the way Goering never threw Hitler under the bus, stuck with him right to the end. Hoped one day I'd get to vote for people as noble as that.

I think the disconnect with Samantha Power was this highly educated Harvard professor buying into such an incredibly biased and simplistic view of the former first lady while at the same time espousing nuance and realism concerning Iraq.

I think it's a matter of getting to emotionally involved in the race. "She is stooping to anything", "She is a monster", "The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive" - all came out of the Ohio race where I believe the big issue was actually Obama's seriousness on renegotiating NAFTA after Canadian news reports to the contrary. I wouldn't really care about her participation in the campaign, but I think it does raise questions whether she would a calm and serious advisor or cabinet official.

Yes Oxbow, I remember all though speeches Goering gave stating how much he disagreed Hitler, how he called for the German people to move past the politics of racial hatred.
Fucking idiot.

"Back to the Samantha Power thing: Hillary hasn't done anything to justify her being called a monster. If she had, it would be different. For a Democratic advisor to shoot us all in the foot like this is beyond the pale. "

Posted by: Swan

To Swan and all of the Hillary supporters - please stop lying. When a Democratic politician uses talking points against other Democratic politicians which were a perfect fit to be picked up by a GOP politician, then she's done serious wrong.

I just got done listening to mad old Pat Buchanan on Morning Joe saying how much we (I guess old white men) had done for the black community what with affirmative action, quotas, pouring money into education and welfare programs and generally bemoaning the lack of opportunities for white men in this country. I mean holding over 80% of CEO positions in Fortune 500 companies, the POTUS and most cabinet positions, most of the Supreme Court, Congress, middle management etc etc...its just not fair!!! Sometimes I wonder if these people ever get out of the TV studio. Anyway returning to sanity, NPR had a good piece on the speech and the Rev. Wright controversy this morning. Its really worth a listen. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88552254
They talked to Martin Marty a respected theologian at the University of Chicago who really gave a interesting angle as to the biblical and preaching context. The Hebrew prophets were very unwelcome in Israel because of the hard words they spoke. Racial division is an issue that this country has to deal with in all its ugliness. We can't afford to whisper about it in hushed tones behind closed doors. My white blue-collar churchgoing catholic father-in-law will tell us that he doesn't like Barack Obama because he just doesn't trust him. My husband challenges him every time by saying "no Dad you just don't like him because he's black". It makes him squirm but I would at least respect him more if he would be honest with himself about his deep seated prejudices. Then I think we could have a real conversation about it.

elmo, I had a student deferment for a period of time. After than I was deferred because I had a wife and child.

I have no problem with ex-liberal expressing his own patriotism, despite having never served in the armed forces.

I respect that, I just can't go there. I still realize I need to be objective, though...

That's nice. I'll go there. I'm not objective. In fact, I'm remembering back five years ago to when this war started and then what it was like to talk about it in 2004 and 2005.

I remember the likes of people like "ex-liberal" who is merely an American Chickenhawk, pure and simple.

Ex-Liberal represents that peculiar kind of American that will question the patriotism of anyone he sees while rabidly supporting a war. And the chickenhawk part is this--when it was time to serve and when it was time to put his own ass on the line, he shit his pants in fear and ran away, figuring out that he had to knock up some chick and have a kid he probably still doesn't want just to get out of having to do his part.

Plenty of people go to war who have children--hell, go watch We Were Soldiers on TBS sometime when it's on. LTC Moore left behind a passel of kids to go fight for his country. I mean, do you really think that's justified? Not going to war because you have children? I guess the war we're currently fighting hasn't created thousands of orphans, has it?

He had a lot of reasons not to go, but he volunteered to go because he wasn't a chickenshit piece of garbage, which is all ex-liberal really is. From now til they put him in his grave, ex-liberal isn't a man. Ex-liberal is a coward, a fearful, snivelling, cheating coward. Instead of saying "I won't fight in a war I don't support," which is the morally consistent way to approach these things, he follows the classic chickenhawk line--he is all for the war that he doesn't have to fight in, and he is morally inconsistent because he wouldn't fight in any war, period.

All he has done, in his presence here, is question the patriotism of people like myself who oppose the war. I happen to be a very, very lucky "small-v" veteran who was in uniform when this war started five years ago but didn't have to deploy. I was stateside at Fort Meade, in a support role. And what a blessing that was for me--I am so grateful that I got through seven years on active duty without hearing a shot fired in anger. Of all the things to be thankful for, that's what I'm thankful for.

So does that give me no moral authority to speak? Some, but not much? A little here or a little there? Who cares. Like millions of Americans who oppose the war, I try to maintain a morally consistent point of view: I oppose the war, I voluntarily put myself in uniform at one time, and I feel I can speak out because I have repeatedly voted for leaders who would end the war. I'm no more qualified to speak up than a kid just out of college, a middle-aged mother who might have a military-aged kid, an old guy who might have done some time in the air force, whatever. Having veteran status doesn't mean I get to throw it in someone's face, especially if I'm not morally consistent when it comes to the Iraq war.

And here's where I can't be objective--when I did speak out after getting out of the military, and when I expressed what I thought--I was vilified, mocked and attacked time and time again by people just like ex-liberal: cowards who never served, rabid supporters of Bush and his war, and deluded wanna-bes who just wanted to get on the bandwagon.

Where are they now? Most of the people bleating about the war in 2005 are fucking gone, silent and hiding. Every time I see a "W" sticker on a car, I think, hmm...at least that sumbitch ain't hiding his dementia.

So I'm gonna go there, just because we should ALL go there. We should all mock and denigrate these "morally inconsistent" fucks like ex-liberal. They deserve nothing better.

It makes him squirm but I would at least respect him more if he would be honest with himself about his deep seated prejudices. Then I think we could have a real conversation about it.

Yeah--that's so hard to do, though. No one likes to think of himself or herself as biased. The most natural reaction is to resent and aggress against the person who points out the bias. We've all done it to one degree or another, depending on what the prejudice is.

I have so much admiration for my father, who has openly conceded that he has homophobic feelings while simultaneously admitting that they're rooted in nothing reasonable and stating that he's trying to get beyond them. He talks about the times and the place in which he was raised, the Army atmosphere, lots of things that contributed to it, and offers thoughtful commentary on how people have to work hard to rise above prejudice, not just expect it to fall away when times change or they start moving in wider circles. It's quite inspiring to hear him discuss it.

Bravo, Pale Rider. I snorted derisively when I read the deferment for fatherhood bit. My dad was a father too, but he went. Donald's father went as well.

Do you know what one of the most prevalent memories of my youth is? The safety pin chain on the living room drapes. When my father would leave, we would hang a chain of 365 safety pins from the top of the drapes, and at first, it would coil on the floor. But every night, after dinner, we would go into the living room and take one safety pin off the chain and put it in a cigar box. Eventually, the chain would no longer reach the floor. Then it would be out of reach of my younger sister. Then I couldn't reach it. I lived and died by that safety pin chain - and the second time he went, I was older. Every time the doorbell rang my tiny little heart stopped in my chest.

Given the prism I view the world through, I really have no interest in hearing war-supporting bullshit from a cowardly lump like that banal sonofabitch. Thank you, Pale Rider, both for your service and for your stance.

So now we know that ex-liberal is really a pseudonym for Dick Cheney.

So Obama called Wright a "crazy uncle," had him resign from the campaign, denounced his statements, said he would have quit the church if he had heard them first hand. But he didn't throw him under the bus? So anything short of cutting Wright out of his life completely is supporting the man? Boy, Obama supporters are willing to give him credit for evrything.

He had Power quit his campaign, and that's being charcterized as throwing her under the bus. He didn't call her crazy, and he certainly didn't say that he would never associate with her again.

There have been lots of instances of politicians disassociating themselves from someone. I don't think anyone has ever demanded that they cut the person out of their life completely. Obama made all of the standard political moves a politician does when distancing themselkves from someone. Then he tries to drape himself in the mantle of nobility by saying he won't "turn his back" on Wright. Once agaiun he tries to have it both ways.

I don't recall anyone demanding that Obama never speak to Wright again. How about something as simple as not lying about the situation when first asked about it?

Obama's speech unveils more than it seems. Obama is not an anti-white racist. Obama's problem is not Jeremiah Wright.

What is Obama's problem? He is a tired, old liberal. He is biologically young yet philosophically old. Her nurtures the delusions of the 1970's Democrats. He is uncreative and cliched, a remnant of the pre-Clinton Democrats.

Two examples:

First, Obama played the race card for the sake of the public school monopoly and implied that if you oppose throwing more taxpayer money into the broken education system, it is because you think that "these kids that don't look like us are not our problem". Bullshit. Just because you don't think the federal government should waste more money on education doesn't make you a bigot.

Obama also plays the race card on illegal immigration. When describing the story of the girl who ate relish and mustard sandwiches, Obama said "they could have told her her mother's problems were caused by...Hispanics who came into the country illegally." Thus, Obama enforces the liberal myth that a Mexican is equivalent to a Hispanic American and that those who oppose illegal immigration are simply racists. Also, Obama reinforces the liberal myth that the importation of 12 million poor people has had little to no economic effect on America's working poor.

Essentially, the Democratic Party has, for the sake of the special interests, accepted two positions-unconditional support of the public school monopoly and unconditional support for illegal immigration-which contradict the Democrats' progressive values. So they use the race card to cover up their own incoherence.

It is disgusting, and reminds people while a Party as out-of-control as the Republicans continues to win elections.

Obama's speech unveils more than it seems. Obama is not an anti-white racist. Obama's problem is not Jeremiah Wright.

What is Obama's problem? He is a tired, old liberal. He is biologically young yet philosophically old. Her nurtures the delusions of the 1970's Democrats. He is uncreative and cliched, a remnant of the pre-Clinton Democrats.

Two examples:

First, Obama played the race card for the sake of the public school monopoly and implied that if you oppose throwing more taxpayer money into the broken education system, it is because you think that "these kids that don't look like us are not our problem". Bullshit. Just because you don't think the federal government should waste more money on education doesn't make you a bigot.

Obama also plays the race card on illegal immigration. When describing the story of the girl who ate relish and mustard sandwiches, Obama said "they could have told her her mother's problems were caused by...Hispanics who came into the country illegally." Thus, Obama enforces the liberal myth that a Mexican is equivalent to a Hispanic American and that those who oppose illegal immigration are simply racists. Also, Obama reinforces the liberal myth that the importation of 12 million poor people has had little to no economic effect on America's working poor.

Essentially, the Democratic Party has, for the sake of the special interests, accepted two positions-unconditional support of the public school monopoly and unconditional support for illegal immigration-which contradict the Democrats' progressive values. So they use the race card to cover up their own incoherence.

It is disgusting, and reminds people while a Party as out-of-control as the Republicans continues to win elections.

*He nurtures

*why a Party as out-of-control

Swan wrote: "For a Democratic advisor to shoot us all in the foot like this is beyond the pale."

For Hillary Clinton to say that John McCain is qualified to be "commander in chief" and that Barack Obama is not, is beyond the pale.

Every statement and action of Hillary Clinton to date is consistent with the view that if she herself does not become president, she would rather have John McCain as president than Barack Obama.

It appears that Hillary Clinton is prepared to throw the Democratic Party under the bus if she thinks that's what it will take for her to become president.

As a Kucinich supporter, I have been agnostic on the race between Clinton and Obama, since from my point of view there is not that much difference between them on substantive policy matters. And I still tend to think that if either of them becomes president the actual outcomes of their presidencies would be more similar than different.

However, Obama's speech about Wright was perhaps the best speech I have ever heard from any American politician in my lifetime. Not only did he honestly, clearly and courageously address the difficult topics of "race" and religion, he addressed an even more politically risky and more important subject: the role of class in America. He spoke openly of working class whites and working class blacks and Latinos being deliberately divided against each other by the corporate ruling class.

That is a message that corporate America and its wholly-owned mass media do NOT want Americans to hear. Any politician who speaks about it is at risk of assassination -- if not actual assassination with bullets, then an onslaught of character assassination from the corporate-owned media. Which is exactly what we see being directed at Obama right now.

Meanwhile, while Obama stepped up to these very difficult matters with a brilliant and heartfelt speech, I find Hillary Clinton's statements and actions to be increasingly offensive, dishonest and divisive.

So, on balance, at this point I would say I have become an Obama supporter. Of the three major party candidates still in the race, he is clearly the best choice.

I have planned to vote for the Green Party nominee in November (unless it is Ralph Nader, which now seems unlikely). I may still do so in any case -- Maryland where I live is a solidly blue state and likely to be carried overwhelmingly by the Democratic candidate, and I support building the Green Party as a long term project. But if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I may well change my mind and vote for him in November. If the November election is between Clinton and McCain I will certainly vote Green.

PaulB: Why [should Obama have distanced himself and his family from Rev. Wright long ago}?

As I said, because some of the viewpoints Rev. Wright was expressing were racist, untrue, or anti-American. It seems wrong to regularly expose one's family to that sort of commentary, especially young children.

And should he also have "distanced" himself and his family from his grandmother?

Of course not. We don't choose our relatives. Furthermore, I believe this woman had helped to raise Obama.

OTOH, Obama as an adult chose Rev. Wright as his pastor. He could have chosen a different church. He could have spoken to Rev. Wright and tried to change his views.

Essentially, the Democratic Party has, for the sake of the special interests, accepted two positions-unconditional support of the public school monopoly and unconditional support for illegal immigration-which contradict the Democrats' progressive values. So they use the race card to cover up their own incoherence.

Essentially, the Republican Party has, for the sake of special interests, destroyed the finest military in the world, handed billions of dollars over in no-bid contracts that has been pissed away on a deluded fantasy, and established "permanent war" as its mantra.

You're bitching about Democrats wanting to educate kids and accept immigrants into this country? Uh, you build successful societies based on educating people and accepting diversification as a way of enriching the culture. Had it not been for the millions of people we brought into this country in the 19th century who went on to become educated and literate and who went on to build our cities and infrastructure while also creating the greatest industrial and agricultural base in the history of mankind, we'd be a third world country.

...which, ironically, is what the Republicans have been trying to turn us into since 2001. They've been trying to spend us into oblivion and ruin our currency, politicize the military and eliminate the protections afforded to our citizens under the Constitution. They've been trying to turn America in Mexico--they want there to be two classes of people: the insanely super-rich living in gated communities and everyone else.

Here's to your crackerjack analysis--you're really on the ball, fucko.

Oh, lectures on morality from ex-liberal now. Tut-tutting from the cowardly lion, now?

Shut the fuck up, asshole. Your five minutes expired before they were issued. You have no moral authority to question anything that anyone does.

Man-up sometime and tell us how you cried like a baby when they told you didn't have to serve your country when it needed you.

The conservatives are shocked, shocked!, to discover there are angry black people in America.

Dear Blue Girl - Some time ago, you asked me not to interact with your posts. I've honored your request. Under those circumstances, it seems unfair for you to be posting about me.

Anyone who wants to discuss the morality or alleged inconsistency of my behavior is welcome to e-mail me directly. I don't intend to hijack this website by responding to the criticisms here.

Anyone who wants to discuss the morality or alleged inconsistency of my behavior is welcome to e-mail me directly. I don't intend to hijack this website by responding to the criticisms here.

Exactly! You're a snivelling little shitbag coward!

We've established that. Got anything new to be an asshole about?

I have no desire to consort with the likes of you. I did respond to another persons criticisms and characterization of your position on wars, and how it hinges on whether you might have to fight in them or not, and how convenient you seem to find moral ambiguity.

Anyone who wants to discuss the morality or alleged inconsistency of my behavior is welcome to e-mail me directly. I don't intend to hijack this website by responding to the criticisms here.

Yes, I imagine it would be more comfortable for you if we took this outside. Unfortunately, given your record of posts impugning the morality of men like Kerry who weren't afraid to serve, as well as your incessant cheerleading of the second Vietnam War in which we're currently entangled, we don't feel inclined to extend you that cover.

You really are a morally bankrupt character, ex-liberal. You really are.

ex-liberal wrote: "... some of the viewpoints Rev. Wright was expressing were racist, untrue, or anti-American."

Pity this pathetic troll. His chosen name -- "ex-liberal" -- is a lie, since it is abundantly evident that he has never been a liberal and is nothing but a Republican partisan and a weak-minded, ignorant dupe of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. And he has consistently demonstrated that he has nothing to offer but slavish regurgitation of scripted right-wing Republican talking points.

In fact, none of the "views" that Wright expressed were in any way "racist" or "anti-American". Wright says that racism is pervasive in America, and that is simply the truth. Wright harshly and angrily criticizes American government and American society for its heinous actions towards black people in this country, and towards other people all over the world, and his criticisms are absolutely valid and legitimate.

I am not a Christian and I don't believe there is actually a "God" who "damns" anyone. But like many people, I have occasionally used the phrase "God damn" in a colloquial manner, in anger. And when Wright says "God damn America" for the historic and monumental and ongoing injustices this country has committed and continues to commit against African-Americans, I am in complete sympathy with his feelings on the matter.

Wright apparently holds some beliefs that are mistaken -- but so do millions of other Americans. For example, Wright apparently believes that the Bush administration was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, a belief for which I think there is no credible evidence. But this belief is no more outlandish than the belief held by millions of Americans that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks and that the war in Iraq is a war against "the perpetrators of 9/11."

And when Wright says, as in the excerpt from a 2001 sermon that I have heard, that the 9/11 attacks were "blowback" from unjust US foreign policies -- America's "chickens coming home to roost" -- he is absolutely correct, and anyone who fails to understand this is ill-equipped to deal effectively with the threat of terrorism.

And as for ex-liberal, he would be worthy of more respect if he would openly and honestly acknowledge that he is a Republican partisan spouting scripted Republican propaganda, and drop his laughably fake, phony "concern troll" act.

Campaign statements aside, I think it's pretty obvious that both Clinton and Obama WILL end the war and we'll have most of our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

I just don't buy the notion that either one of them are going to saddle themselves with Bush's war and continue with a policy that is ultimately going to bankrupt the country. The sheer cost in money and the horrific cost in personnel is the reason why.

They can't say it, but they're gonna end the way. Way too many neocons continue to get published every single day. When O'Hanlon, Kagan, Kristol, Perle and McCain are held accountable for being liars and enablers, only then can you have an honest dialogue about what to do. Unfortunately, the media enables the dialogue right now, and no one can actually tell the truth.

I also think McCain would run away from the war as well--I think he's lying about what he would do. He's not going to drape Bush's war over his shoulders and take it from him. He's lying to get the nomination. I think that the best reason not to vote for him is that he has no clue as to what the issues really are.

There is some good analysis today about the speech. Maureen Down, of all people, is pretty interesting and serious in her analysis. Susan Estrich also is pretty good. Both sympathetic, but honest about his faillure to really explain how he could have accepted such anti-
American crap for 20 years.

This is also pretty good on the likely effect:

"[after stating he lost some number of swing voters irretrivably, but should keep the lefties and moderate lefties who want to believe that Obama stands for racial reconciliation] As for the right, however, I expect that the main effect of this controversy will be to consolidate support for John McCain in a way even Hillary Clinton could not have done. In a contest between a man who sat in the pews Sunday after Sunday while his pastor bad-mouthed America, versus a war hero who endured torture for his country, no one on the right will even regard this as a choice."

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com.

For a Democratic advisor to shoot us all in the foot like this is beyond the pale.

For Hillary to publicly call for the head of one of the bright young minds in foreign policy when the Dems aren't exactly overflowing with them is worse.

Personally, I wish he'd brushed it aside for the bs that it was. The only reason I'll let Obama off the hook is that I'm sure he'll make it up to Power once he's elected...with a State Department/Cabinet job.

Someone who forgot to include his name challanged me to admit I'm a Republican. Of course I am.

But, as a young man I was indeed an active liberal. I supported the anti-nuke group, SANE; participated in a Martin Luther King March on Washington; demonstrated against the Vietnamese War; was a Eugene McCarthy campaign worker; subscribed to the Nation magazine; marched with Pete Seeger once; was a member of the NAACP, the ACLU and the New Democratic Coalition.

Power came across as intellectually weak in her interview on BBC, and she is very inexperienced, but then I read her report on the Ruwanda debacle and she was a very good reporter. But I don't think it is serious (and if it is, it is frightening) that she would be a serious state department/cabinet player at age 36 about ten years out of law school and thereafter cloistered at Harvard. I don't think any of these guys are brilliant or have the answers, but we need to be able to do better than that.

In a contest between a man who sat in the pews Sunday after Sunday while his pastor bad-mouthed America, versus a war hero who endured torture for his country, no one on the right will even regard this as a choice.

John "I'm abandoning my crippled first wife to take up with a younger, richer, better-looking woman who will let me use her family's money to finance my political career" McCain sure does have the moral high ground over Obama, doesn't he?

You know, all of us who are liberals have "bad mouthed America" to one extent or another. But every time McCain criticized Bill Clinton as Commander in Chief and spoke out in the Senate about how Congress needed to ensure that Clinton didn't actually get to exercise his power as Commander in Chief, wasn't that "bad-mouthing America?"

How about that time McCain said there were no POWs in Vietnam being held after the end of the war? Wasn't he bad-mouthing America when he told the people who support MIA causes that there weren't any POWs over there?

How about that time McCain got caught taking Charles Keatings' money to keep the regulators off of his ass--wasn't he bad-mouthing America when he said that the Feds were wasting their time?

How about that time McCain criticized Don Rumsfeld? Wasn't he "bad mouthing America" when he did that? How about that time he called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance?" Wasn't he bad mouthing America then?

I mean, really. That's the best you got? You must have run screaming from military service just like ex-lib.

And you know what else? When white people in this country figure out that black people were actually lynched, have been run out of communities, were abandoned by their government in New Orleans, are being imprisoned in record numbers, and have been harrassed and intimidated by the police all over this country, while being unable to benefit during economic good times because of disproportionate unemployment and poverty, then maybe they can criticize people like Wright.

I mean, you really have to be ignorant of basic American history to buy this phony criticism of the man. You have to be, well, you pretty much have to be an ignorant fuck to think this is all something that has happened in a vacuum.

What am I saying? Ignorant fucks abound.

"As I said, because some of the viewpoints Rev. Wright was expressing were racist, untrue, or anti-American. It seems wrong to regularly expose one's family to that sort of commentary, especially young children."

ROFL... Dear heart, I'll ask you the same thing I've asked others: how many sermons, speeches, articles, public and private talks, personal conversations, has Wright had over the past 20 years that Obama has known him? And how many of those contained material that was "racist, untrue, or anti-American?"

We'll wait right here while you wrap your head around the fact that you have not even remotely demonstrated that Obama "regularly expose[d] one's family to that sort of commentary." And that's giving you the benefit of a doubt, since you can easily "regularly expose one's family to that sort of commentary", using it as a teaching tool, which means that, as usual, you simply don't have a point.

"Of course not. We don't choose our relatives."

So? Of what relevance is that? If I have a vile, racist relative, why should I regularly "expose my family" to that relative?

Getting the picture yet, dear?

"Furthermore, I believe this woman had helped to raise Obama."

Again, so? You could say the same thing about Wright.

"OTOH, Obama as an adult chose Rev. Wright as his pastor."

Why yes, he did, and with good reason, had you bothered to actually read what Obama and Wright have written and said over the years.

Do try harder, dear. This was pretty pathetic.

"But, as a young man I was indeed an active liberal"

Sure you were, dear. We believe this just as much as the rest of the bilge you routinely toss around here.

Given how wrong you've been about, well, everything, since you began posting here, you might want to rethink your shtick. It's getting old.

I'd like to throw under the bus anyone who uses the term "throw under the bus."