He's a talented politician, but he's not the second coming.

Right. That was George W Bush.

Yes, Obama's speech was mostly well-received and it should have been. Many think it showed great talent by Obama, who is reported to have written it himself (imagine some others out there writing something like that ...) It was inspiring enough to move Gov. Bill Richardson to endorse him. The original Wright sermon was deceitfully hyped and smeared by Rightist propagandists. The sermon was delivered way back on 9/16/2001. There's a good rundown on the whole business by Anderson Cooper at http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
Indeed, Wright was quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force. Peck was speaking on FOX News. Wright did not say that what happened was justified. The meaning of "chickens coming home to roost" means that poking at something can have blowback, not that the blowback was ethically valid:

“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

Later he said the following:

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

I don't think there's much he or Barack should be apologizing for about that particular speech, although I didn't like the GD America stuff the other time.

I thought it was a speech like no other I've ever heard from another political figure. I suspected it would help him some, but those numbers are through the roof. There's no way they can be realistic.

Here's some more links in similar vein regarding Obama and Wright, just as text since html is a nuisance for me:

http://miaculpa.blogspot.com/2008/03/listen-up.html

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/21/16207/3114/363/481705

Charley Reese on Obama:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese438.html

“My estimation of him went up, because I’m sick and tired of these weasels who avoid anything that their staff says might cause them to be a shade less popular. You want a real man with guts in the White House? Well, Obama fits the bill.”

How is it that McCain's relationship with Hagee got a pass during this entire episode? I haven't heard any renouncement of views from his camp yet.

It seems in every poll, about a third of people express dissenting opinions. Even now, GWB, the worst.president.ever, polls around 30% approval. The fact that only 20% of voters thought Obama did a poor "job addressing race relations" is a pretty astounding number. I assume a fair number of those are Republicans (only 43% of whom "agree with Obama's views on race relations in the U.S. versus 73% of Dems.)

Still, I was disturbed that 14% of people who formerly supported Obama over McCain responded that these events make them LESS likely to vote Obama. Some people are so suggestible. I wonder how many of them voted for GWB in 2004 because of the convenient release of the OBL tape the Friday before the election and because John Kerry was obviously lying about his heroism in Vietnam.

I saw this post on the Carpetbagger Report today. Despite the outrage, isn't it possible that Bill is just trying to warn us that Obama will face 24/7-plastered cable news rehashes of the Wright controversy, while Hillary won't? That's a pretty legitimate point for Bill to be making to the voters and the superdelegates. Obama has some pretty bad exposure to the Rovians that Hillary doesn't, because of this.

Kevin, why are you ignoring though the national polls that still show Hillary leading Obama by a couple of points? That's important, too.

Swan --
And Hillary will face Bill's blow job 24/7 plus more manufactured outrage over their financial dealings, which won't be difficult since their net worth has gone from a few million to fifty million in the last eight years.

When will people get that WHOEVER the Democratic nominee is, they will face relentless lying and hysteria from the right-wing press (and by that I mean most of the MSM)?

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we support the candidate we think would make the best president -- not the one the wingnuts might go easy on. (NOT!)

I'm sick to death of hearing that the Republicans will destroy Obama in the General with Wright. It's a one trick pony. Clinton has WAY more negatives and a lot less vetting than than some people think. You think the Republicans won't beat Clinton over the head with Lewinski, or Marc Rich, or impeachment every day until November? And frankly, I'm tired of being scared of what Republicans will do in general. Grow a spine people.

We Americans disagree on politics, that's for sure. The appeal in that speech and with Senator Obama in general is that we can disagree with respect. The normal way to win elections is to rough him up with negative attacks and get into a mudslinging contest. This speech was a different type of response than we have seen with Presidents Bush and Clinton. It's a different way of countering the political slime machines (yes, Dems have them, too). That speech was the first introduction for most Americans to Senator Obama under fire. It will resonate for a while.

How is it that McCain's relationship with Hagee got a pass during this entire episode? I haven't heard any renouncement of views from his camp yet.

The Right holds the view that this country was perfect at some point (when, I have no idea), and that the Abortionists, Feminists, Gays and Libruls have been trying to bring it down for decades. The Left takes the view that this country is flawed, but can be better, if they could only point out and improve upon the areas where it fails to live up to expectations.

Because the Left criticizes the country in an effort to save it, they are seen as Anti-American by those on the Right. And the media never challenges that notion.

Oh, and because Wright is a scary black man.

gee kevin, you hillary is showing.

I suspected it would help him some, but those numbers are through the roof. There's no way they can be realistic.

Well, the numbers have only a limited kind of value. Keep in mind that these numbers are percentages of the group of people who say they "have heard or read about Obama's speech." There's a fairly significant selection bias here; that sample will likely represent disproportionately large numbers of people who do not already have negative views about Obama.

In general, we seek out information about things that we like, value, or are interested in. Yes, some people who hate Obama will have followed coverage of the speech (especially on Faux News), but lots of people who are turned off by a discussion about race, or just aren't interested in one, will simply have tuned the speech out. I think those people are less likely to be Obama supporters. So this survey is inevitably going to oversample Obama supporters and overestimate his support compared to the population at large.

In short, you simply can't compare these percentages to the percentages in a standard opinion poll of all voters, all likely voters, etc. I wish more discussions of this poll would acknowledge this point - the few I've seen online so far have not given much attention.

Not the "second coming" huh! You wouldn't know that from the likes of (sends a chill running up my leg) Matthews and others in the media and on blogosphere who can't dance fast enough to chummy up to Obama...I like him fine, but Hillary is still my choice and I'm being completely turned off by the behaviors/comments/opinions of those who think what THEY observe/believe should determine the outcome of this campaign that I'm quickly losing the hope that was once there about being able to turn around this SHIP!!!!! Our celebrity driven society just grabbed on to a young, articulate, bi-racial politician who appeared to be able to RIGHT EVERY WRONG and save us from THE CLINTONS...yegods! Just when you think that THINKING and REASONING will return to the scene...back to the 24/7 news cycle of BREAKING CRAP NEWS...

You know what galvanized my support for Obama again yesterday? The clip of Hillary in 2002 saying that Saddam was a danger to the us and grew more dangerous every day, using the exact same language that Bush had used.

When registered voters were asked if Obama would unite the country, however, 52 percent said yes — down from 67 percent last month.

In a way, isn't this comparing apples and oranges? Last month, when people were asked this question, they probably thought of it in terms of "bipartisan unity" or "uniting the country over the Iraq war" or "uniting the country on fixing the economy." Today, people probably think of it in terms of "uniting the country on the race issue."

I'm reporting from the Alabama of Pennsylvania, in the north central part of the state, where I post on our local newspaper's letters site.

At first, the outrage was palpable against Wright and Obama. This is as racist an area as any in the US, so I wasn't surprised.

However, It was obvious that those who were outraged were those who had not read the speech, so I started posting excerpts, especially the paragraph about white resentment.

We also posted and linked to Hagee and Parsley speeches.

Astonishingly, the number of outraged posts has shrunk to almost nil (there are of course the requisite nut jobs still hanging on); or, should I say, the outrage has taken a new turn. People are now very upset that a candidate would be judged by what his preacher says in church. (This is a very churchy joint, too).

If this most conservative area's website is any indication, the percentages that Kevin posted would seem to be near correct. Those who read the speech have changed their opinions about the whole matter.

Kevin, I think you and the rest of the Obama fan club [I consider myself a member] are still sugar-coating how serious this issue is. I don't think the correct analogy is Hagee; to my moderate conservative friends this was analogous to a Republican being a member of Fred Phelps' "church" and trying to say he only went for the baby in the manger stuff. That scene of the audience laughing and cheering about 911 on the following Sunday is just beyond the pale, and conservatives, even moderate conservatives that were receptive to Obama, will never forgive it or rationalize it or obsfucate it without a stronger denunciation than what's been given so far. If you can picture Andrew Sullivan talking about Phelps as a feisty provincial populist with a few rough edges then I think you'll get an idea of what my neighbors and co-workers are hearing with this speech.

He's a talented politician, but he's not the second coming.

Who says this? I've honestly never heard any Obama supporter refer to him as the second coming, but I've heard a LOT of Clinton supporters refer to him as such, albeit not in support of Obama. I'm not saying your a Hillary supporter Kevin, I just tire of hearing this phrase thrown around so often when there's no evidence of Obama supporters feeling this way.

"Obama ain't nothin but a long-legged Mac Daddy!"

-- The Hon. James David Manning, PhD

63 percent of voters following the events say they agree with Obama's views on race relations

I thought we decided that 63% of people agree with Obama whether they actually know what he thinks about a particular subject or not. The deciding factor isn't some labored cognitive checklist. It's a shiver that starts in your spine and jumps to the nucleus accumbens.

*

But liberals have different standards for different classes of people.

This is true. Race is the one issue in this country where the Right is made to feel guilty when they express their true feelings. They should feel embarrassed by their entire platform myself.

Why did you leave out the other part of the same poll? You know, the part that said, "When registered voters were asked if Obama would unite the country, however, 52 percent said yes - down from 67 percent last month."? Oh wait, I know why, sorry.

loki: voices of reason don't work here.

Why did you leave out the other part of the same poll? You know, the part that said, "When registered voters were asked if Obama would unite the country, however, 52 percent said yes - down from 67 percent last month."? Oh wait, I know why, sorry.

You might try reading the post again.

Oops my bad, apologies extended.

Wow, you should all see how the Clinton Dead-enders on Talkleft are spinning this...

As for the general discussion here: I think some of you are old, and haven't noticed that the country has changed. Many of you are still pretending we're living with the same Electorate that existed 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. You act like this country is still 80% white. You act like this electorate is overwhelmingly made up of veterans. You basically act as though the world hasn't at all changed from when you were 20 or 30, when the truth is that we're demographically very different than we once were.

Radix, a large part of that dip has more to do with McCain consolidating his Republican base than it does to do with anything that a preacher said. Do you really think that 17% of the population would tell itself that Obama was a man of u8nity, and then pull the level for McCain anyway? OR is it more likely that people who want to pull the level for McCain stopped telling themselves what became uncomfortable to hear?

Soullite, that's a pretty dismissive way to look at the country. Another way to look at is that people have changed the way they associate themselves with the a particular electoral brand. The Clintons represent the Democratic Brand, for better or for worse, for a lot of people in this country. People are voting for or voting against that brand. Younger people aren't nearly as brand-loyal as previous generations, whether it comes to toothpaste or politicians. Some people are looking at the logo on the front of the package, while others are looking at the ingredients and manufacture date. I think that's were a lot of the divide is coming from. There's nothing wrong with either view. They're just different.

Oh shit, now everyone knows what I do for a living!

There was never any chance of persuading the 30% of hardcore Fox viewers, after all, and this poll suggests that he got virtually unanimous support among everyone else.

I thought that it was a great speech, and I do not in the least (ok, maybe the least) begrudge his long-term support of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I would like to add two items of context that I have not read elsewhere.

1. As an African-American, Barack Obama has frequently, probably every day, received prejudicial stares, avoidances, epithets from white, Korean, Chinese, Indonesian, and other people. Even if we generously assume that only 10% of all of us are racially prejudiced, that means that some racially prejudiced people have accosted him all the time. If he shopped in the "wrong" store or drove his car in the "wrong" neighborhood, this happened to him. Nevertheless, he has risen above all that, by all accounts, not letting it destroy his morale. If he can rise above that, he can work with Jeremiah Wright on Wright's good work while not being discouraged by Wright's own prejudice. Wright has done good work. People who have been willing to forgive Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and other "divisive" figures need to remember that.

2. Wright's Black Liberation Theology is not the only kooky religion in the U.S. I don't wish to cast aspersions on any particular religions or religious beliefs (an exception below), but consider all those people who believe that they know and understand exactly the meaning of "The Revelation of Saint John". True believers have been sincerely yet totally wrong every year since that was written down, yet today's believers are absolutely convinced that they have the true meaning. Black Liberation Theology is of a piece with "the Rapture".

It's worth remembering also that Harry Truman worked with the Pendergast machine of Kansas City, and never disowned them. He even attended Boss Pendergast's funeral while he was president. But Truman was never corrupted by his business with them. By all reliable evidence, Obama has transcended the prejudices of those about him. I don't want to canonize him. From my perspective, he still has serious flaws as a candidate, but he really is better than most of us.

Also, I am a "typical white person" (in Obama's most unfortunate phrase), and I know lots of other "typical white" people who are really good people yet racially prejudiced. If I had to disown every white, black, or Asian person who was racially prejudiced than I would almost have to live alone. In the same sense that "we are all sinners", "we all have racial prejudices". I know a few people who don't seem to be biased against blacks, but then most of them hate "rednecks", or even all "white men" (c.f. Erica Jong and "pink men").

^

[You are probably the last person here who should tell anyone to go away. --Mod]

Swan, where do you get off telling someone not to post here when you wailed and cried the other day about people "trying to drive you off the site" by making fun of you?

I swear to god you are seriously crazy.

Obama's speech was well received.

So?

Jimmy Carter's approval rating went *up* after the so-called "malaise" speech because people *agreed* with what he said.

Then time passed, they *forgot* what he had said, and Ted K managed to recharacterize it retroactively.

It would probably have been better to address the issue with a sound bite. Something like:

"Having the Reverend as a spiritual adviser is like being led across a chasm by way of a suspension bridge. The view is undeniably inspiring -- and then one of the steps cracks under your foot. That we must continue forward, however, remains clear."

or the less poetic

"Had the Reverend said 'God *spank* America we would not be having this discussion."

Anyway, Dalloway wrote: And Hillary will face Bill's blow job 24/7

No, she won't, because it will look so unfair that people won't stand for it if Bill's affair gets mentioned more than a little. On the other hand, it's already been proven that not only won't the public get upset at the media if the media pushes the Wright story, the Wright story actually did hurt Obama, until the media swooped in to save him again, promoting Obama's good speech.

DJShay wrote: I'm sick to death of hearing that the Republicans will destroy Obama in the General with Wright.

I am sick of people going on the Internet and claiming that Obama is an ideal candidate, and that Hillary is the only one who will face criticism that will be effective in the eyes of the public. It's obsessive, bloviating, unfounded, and a fairy tale.

Anyway, Dalloway wrote: And Hillary will face Bill's blow job 24/7

No, she won't, because it will look so unfair that people won't stand for it if Bill's affair gets mentioned more than a little. On the other hand, it's already been proven that not only won't the public get upset at the media if the media pushes the Wright story, the Wright story actually did hurt Obama, until the media swooped in to save him again, promoting Obama's good speech.

DJShay wrote: I'm sick to death of hearing that the Republicans will destroy Obama in the General with Wright.

I am sick of people going on the Internet and claiming that Obama is an ideal candidate, and that Hillary is the only one who will face criticism that will be effective in the eyes of the public. It's obsessive, bloviating, unfounded, and a fairy tale.

it will look so unfair that people won't stand for it if Bill's affair gets mentioned more than a little

The first thing the media did when Senator Clinton released her records this week was see if she was in the White House when President Clinton was committing sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky.

Swan: obsessive, bloviating, unfounded

Really, the meds will help.

junebug: I suspected it would help him some, but those numbers are through the roof. There's no way they can be realistic.

While approval of the speech was relatively high, I don't see the results (i.e., whether they'd vote for Obama) as being "through the roof"; seemed more like a nominal shift both ways.

"It's obsessive, bloviating, unfounded, and a fairy tale."

It's also a strawman argument that nobody is making. Your case would be far more persuasive if you engaged arguments that people actually made instead of simply making shit up.

If he can rise above that, he can work with Jeremiah Wright on Wright's good work while not being discouraged by Wright's own prejudice. Wright has done good work. People who have been willing to forgive Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and other "divisive" figures need to remember that.

Amen.

"We Americans just disagree about a lot of stuff, and that's not likely to change anytime soon."

That's right, but Obama's based his campaign on unity and has insulted partisanship and fights over issues as "old ways of doing politics" and as something we need to move beyond.

The country doesn't want to agree about things they value--they want to fight to make govt work for them.

Don't suppose that Senator Obama's tail is the only one to which Republicans will attempt to tie the Jeremiah Wright can. Did Hillary Clinton object to the Rev. Wright being invited to the White House--then her home--in the wake of the Lewinsky blowjob scandal?

joanbeach4, now you should post excerpts of Wright's speech, showing that his chickens coming home to roost idea was quoted from a white Reagan appointee, wasn't and endorsement of the actions, etc.

As for loki worrying about "the audience laughing and cheering about 911", well first it only takes a little sector of an audience to make noise and give an impression. Second, can you believe that almost all of them would be cheering the speaker, not what happened that day? I'll listen for laughs, but the speech sounds somber whatever the ideological spin. Finally, Obama is even less responsible for what some of the attendees think than he is for what that minister had to say.

"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets it's boots on."
--Mark Twain

"[Sen. Obama's] a talented politician, but he's not the second coming."

Oh, yeah? Well, just try to tell that to the good people at TPM and Daily Kos, and then see what happens.

C'mon, don't be chicken! I dare ya. No, I double-dare ya!

I've just been watched the Wright video for which Neil B. provided the text. It is stunning and distressing how far it has been wrenched out of context

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

Actually, it's

"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on."
--Mark Twain

Punctuation matters.

Punctuation matters.

It certainly doe's.

N. Wells: "It is stunning and distressing how far it has been wrenched out of context."

Yes, I'm sure that it is. But such is life for any candidate with a (D) behind his or her name, and for anyone associated with such candidates, as well.

Kevin needs to review the 30% breakdown of that CBS poll. He will find it's not as bad for Obama either.

P.S. Where's the comparison study of pastor's who blame America for bad events as God's punishment?

craigie:
Punctuation matters.
shortstop:
It certainly doe's.
James:
of pastor's who blame America

Then again maybe, not.

N. Wells -- My estimation of Wright went up several points after watching that video. Thanks Neil B.

yw, but I don't think it is the entire text. Andrew Sullivan has it and the video, with good commentary, at http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-wright-post.html . Also see E. J. Dione at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003021.html quoting MLK saying almost the very same things back in the day. Sully continues to ably atone for his previous running with the bad sector of the Right.

"Sully continues to ably atone for his previous running with the bad sector of the Right"

Not really. Sullivan is rabidly anti-Hillary, so it's not too surprising that he'd try to help Obama.

PaulB you are right, but he hits on that bunch well enough overall now.

It certainly doe's, a deer, a female deer...

thersites: Then again maybe, not.

Sigh. And here I'd thought my little joke was so lame as to be underestimating my audience.

That's what you get for underestimating your Id.

And damn you, monsieur le craigie! That will be looping through my head all night!

That's what you get for underestimating your Id.

A frightening thought, to be sure. Are you my id posting without ID?

N. Wells - Thanks for the link the Wright's Sermon.

It would be nice if politics wasn't always reduced to a game of gotcha. That includes most of the excerpted quotes and gaffes made by all the candidates and their surrogates in this campaign. Not all, but most.

I doubt Hillary will get hit with blowjob attacks, but resume fluffery attacks will be merciless. Bonsia

That will be looping through my head all night!

Mr Shortstop: Honey, it's Saturday night...
Shortstop: Not tonight, I can't get you out of my mind, deer.

Bwa ha ha!

Just remember -- 29% of people in Illinois voted for Alan Keyes, who had no history in the state aside from his presidential candidacy and no natural constituency. So as someone else pointed out a ways back --

29% is your baseline crazy.

Am the only person who thinks Obama is being held to a different standard on Rev. Wright's divisive statements then McCain (and Bush) are held on Rev. Hagee, Pat Robertson and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's divisive statements? The media ought to shine a bright light on all these Preachers and the politicians they support.

Shortstop:
I saw your link was moderated before I went to view it. Now that I have, I see that the Mod did it as a public service. Yikes!

"Am the only person who thinks Obama is being held to a different standard on Rev. Wright's divisive statements then McCain (and Bush) are held on Rev. Hagee, Pat Robertson and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's divisive statements?"

Of course not. The response to such criticisms has always been that McCain didn't attend their services for 20 years, nor cite them as his mentors and spiritual leaders. That's a fair point, but it's also worth noting that McCain sought these people out and specifically asked them for their support. And that the right-wing evangelical leaders have been every bit as much "America-hating" as have any of their counterparts in the black churches but their statements and their ties to the Republican Party and Republican candidates just aren't subject to the same level of scrutiny or the same standards.

He's a talented politician, but he's not the second coming.

He's more than a talented politician. That's the whole point of his support. He's the only candidate who has hit a homerun in just one speech. Let the others try, and see what happens.

I believe the date of Rev. Wrights speech is wrong since I believe he is referencing parts of Ambassador Pecks interview that took place on 10/8/2001 on CNN Crossfire (not FOX, but an easy mistake to make). One interesting quote from Peck in the interview:

"Because we don't want to look at why, why it is that all of these people hate us. It's not because of freedom. It's not because Brittney Spears has a belly button or because we export hamburgers. They hate us because of things they see us doing to their part of the world that they definitely do not like."

Kevin is guilty of either cherry picking or being unawared of other polls with very different results. Rassmussen (which has a pretty good track record) had a far different story. I think only 51% said it was a good or excellent speech, including only 67% of democrats. I think only 30% said it made them more likely to vote for him. There were other medicore numbers.

Below is a comparision of CBS and another poll:

CBS:

Sixty-nine percent of voters who have heard or read about Obama’s speech say he did a good job addressing the issue of race relations, and 63 percent of voters following the events say they agree with Obama's views on race relations. Seventy-one percent say he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright.

When registered voters were asked if Obama would unite the country, however, 52 percent said yes - down from 67 percent last month.

But the results of the latest Insider Advantage poll on the Obama-Wright controversy are jaw-dropping.

First, 82 percent of respondents are aware of "the situation regarding Sen. Barack Obama's church pastor and the past public remarks he has made," and somehow, 83 percent are aware of "Obama's speech on Tuesday, in which he addressed the issue of his pastor." (Okay, who's the one percent who knew about the speech but not the 'situation'?)

Asked of all voters, "taking all this into account, are you more likely or less likely to support Obama for president" — 20 percent more likely, 49 percent less likely, 27 percent about the same.

Among those who answered that they were "aware" to the first two questions, 19 percent said they were more likely to support Obama, 52 percent said they were less likely, and 27 percent the same.

Among whites, the "less likely" answer came from 51.3 percent. Among blacks, it was 56.2 percent. (!) Among Hispanics, 54.5 percent. (The sub-sample sizes for blacks and Hispanics were 85 and 46, so it's possible that maybe it's too small a sample to get a really good reading on these demographics).

Among Republicans, the "less likely" crowd was 53.7 percent, among Democrats it was 47.6 percent, among Independents it was 55.6 percent.

The pollsters themselves seem quite surprised by the results:

“In my weekly Creators Syndicate column that I penned just hours before this poll, I wrote that I had no idea how the country would react to the Obama speech,” said Matt Towery, CEO of InsiderAdvantage.

“And I’m always wary of polling race. People aren’t always completely forthcoming on such a touchy subject.

“But there’s no way around the numbers as they read all across the board. They are consistent in every demographic we measured. Most people didn’t have a gut positive reaction to Obama’s speech,” he said.

The pollsters at InsiderAdvantage note that they "carefully crafted the poll’s questions. We never mentioned the words ‘race’ or ‘controversy,’ or explained what all the fuss was about. Our first question was simply, ‘Are you aware of the situation regarding Sen. Barack Obama’s church pastor and the past public remarks he has made?’"

Is it possible that some folks don't want to admit to a pollster that Obama's speech made them less likely to support him?

"There was never any chance of persuading the 30% of hardcore Fox viewers, after all, and this poll suggests that he got virtually unanimous support among everyone else."

What's to be done about a sizable minority who disagree with a candidate's message (30% Fox viewers)? Why, let's just discount their views entirely!

Does Kevin believe there are other sizable minorities whose views we should discount entirely? Say 12-13% or so?

http://gogle.com google

http://gogle.com google

http://gogle.com google