Yes, Clinton Campaign Is Pushing The Wright Story

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 22:02


ABC News asks Hillary Clinton if her campaign is pushing Jeremiah Wright to superdelegates:

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has strictly maintained a public position not to comment on Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Many times, questions have been answered with -- "you will have to ask Senator Obama about that."

However at a Thursday press availability in Terra Haute, Indiana after a report surfaced that the Clinton campaign was pushing the Wright story to superdelegates arguing that the relationship hurt Obama's electibility -- Clinton refused to deny that her campaign was pushing the story.

When asked, Clinton ignored the Wright portion of the question and said "well my campaign has been making the case that I am the most electable that I have said that for a year or more that I am the person best able to make the challenges that our country faces as commander in chief."

When Clinton was then asked specifically if her campaign was pushing the Wright story -- she shrugged and took the next question, ignoring the reporter.

Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka, the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable.

While we are not superdelegates, we are committee people in Pennsylvania, so the campaigns consider us very important right now. Maybe not superdelegate important, but important none the less. Also, the staffers were aware that I was a committee person in Ward 27, and so they must have known that there was a good chance I would report on what they said to the blogosphere.

Now, whether or not you consider using Jeremiah Wright in an electability argument off-limits might be another matter. The story has obviously hurt Obama in the polls on at least a temporary basis, and even I have argued that the story has hurt Obama's chances to become President (although I also think he is still the favorite). However, since I was in a position tonight to gather real news on an issue the press is discussing, I thought I would report what I found. Yes, the Clinton campaign is arguing to party officials, including me, that the Wright story demonstrates Clinton is more electable. Take that for what it is worth.

Update: Just to be clear--which seems exceptionally difficult in any online discussion of the presidential campaign--I didn't say it was good or bad, I just said it was happening. And yeah, when I can confirm a story because it happened in public and in my neighborhood, then I'm going to report it. I guess that is part of my ethics.  
Chris Bowers :: Yes, Clinton Campaign Is Pushing The Wright Story

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Yes, Clinton Campaign Is Pushing The Wright Story | 141 comments
Well even... (4.00 / 1)
Lanny Davis wrote an article on the HuffingtonPost pushing the Wright story, and he's a huge Clinton supporter.  It's complete doubletalk on their part in my opinion. "Oh we're not going to discuss Wright." "He can't get elected because of Wright."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."

Joe Wilson, too (4.00 / 1)
Same site, and Wilson even threw in the Reszko stuff.

Gotta love the classy way the Clintons are trying to fan the flames of  a minor real estates deal and guilty by association.

[ Parent ]
Isn't it silly for Clinton to argue (4.00 / 2)
this kind of story makes him less electable ? Coz, honestly, does any of us doubt the Republicans have a sky-high pile of ridiculous controversies ready to throw at her if she is the nominee ?
Wright is right. (0.00 / 0)
I think many of the things Wright said were progressive in substance if not in tone.

I do think that American foreign policy has caused many to hate us, and has exposed us to danger. Tracing the cause of the attack on New York to a misguided and brutal American foreign policy ("chickens coming home to roost") is beneficial if we are hoping to prevent such attacks in the future.

Obama "condemned" Rev. Wright's statements that caused such "controversy".

Obama avoided any discussion of this important issue by shifting his response to a discussion of race.

I don't know where Obama is going with any of this, but I, for one, do not trust him.

[ Parent ]
Bill had Wright in the WH in 1998 (4.00 / 2)
Someone should ask Hillary or her people about the picture.  I guess he was okay then.  
Equate a photo-op... (4.00 / 2)
... with a 20 year relationship?  
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
The point is that Bill Clinton invited Wright to the White House.
[ Parent ]
So what? n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Exactly... So what? (0.00 / 0)
So what to the whole "controversy".
[ Parent ]
Pastor Wright - Bill Clinton (4.00 / 5)
Here's a link to the photo of Bill Clinton schmoozing Pastor Wright at the White House-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

Apparently Pastor Wright was a respectable enough guy to be invited to the White House by the Clintons....  

Not going to work. (4.00 / 2)
I think we should just sit down and accept that a photo of some guy with the President is not going to measure up to -- as far as taint by association goes in public opinion -- a long-term relationship.  I mean, if this line of attack didn't work on Rezko, why would it work on Rev. Wright?  When leveled against Hillary, this particular charge won't last more than five minutes on a right-wing talk show or Fox News.  If the Right Wing Smear Machine is any good at its job (and it is) it will find better things to hit her with than photos with Bill.
[ Parent ]
Did you use the same logic to swiftboat Kerry? (0.00 / 0)
Did you use the same logic to swiftboat John Kerry?

Here is the logic:  The righwing will attack our nominee (Clinton or Obama), therefore we should promote the same attacks during the primary.

[ Parent ]
From my perspective,the "swiftboating" of John Kerry came out of (4.00 / 1)
left field so to speak.

Who among us could have predicted that Kerry's medals and heroism during Vietnam would be questioned? Maybe his attitude about Vietnam would be dragged up but his actual service???? Hindsight is 20/20 and now we can say that "of course the Republicans would do this...straight out of Karl Rove's playbook" but when it was happening I know I and other activist Democrats in MA were shocked because he was the recipient of all those medals - he wasn't lying about receiving them. What was chilling was that it showed that the Republicans would be willing to call into question the service and sacrifice of any soldier just because there was  "D" next to their name and they were running for elective office.

It was a shot across the bow of any veteran of any war who considered themselves a Democrat and perhaps was thinking of running for political office...."Watch out, your service will be questioned."

So I suppose the logic and the lesson isn't that we should prepare for "attacks" by engaging in them ourselves but be better at dealing with them when they undoubtedly will occurr.  

[ Parent ]
Didn't Max Cleland get the same treatment two years earlier than Kerry? (0.00 / 0)
In any case, I think this "undoubtedly" is also doublespeak on the part of the Clinton campaign.  They're arguing that they're pursuing enlightened self-interest when in fact they're pursuing extremely narrow self-interest.  I'm all for uncivil campaigns--the ties to Tony Rezko are worth investigating.  But this stuff is absurd and quite clearly politically motivated in a narrowly self-interested way.  It's also more telling of what sets people off--potentially shady corporate dealings by both candidates (I'm including Clinton's choice to serve on the board of Wal-Mart here) didn't make much of an impact, but you bring up a Black preacher who says some things really aren't that offensive and all of a sudden Obama gets killed in the press and polls and has to give a major speech on race?  And you're telling me that the Clinton campaign doesn't know that injecting and continuing to inject race into this campaign in this way won't have these effects?
[ Parent ]
What are the lessons of "swiftboating"? (4.00 / 1)
1. Republicans will sink to any depth to achieve electoral victory

2. Some avenues of attack that one would never think of as being applied against a candidate will be applied

3. Ignoring the attack because it seems so "outlandish", or so "improbable" or "removed enough from the candidate" that most people will also consider it from just that prospective - outlandish,improbable, and removed is wishful thinking and will only make the attack more effective. It cannot be ignored.

4. Righteous indignation is called for in response and at  least I would call out the other sides hypocrisy.

The American people usually are looking at these moments as "tests" :if one side can be portryed as a "bully" by attacking or as being a "wuss" for not responding effectively to an attack.

They don't like a bully, but they like a wuss even less.

[ Parent ]
But (4.00 / 1)
The thing about swiftboating is that there is rarely an effective counter that keeps the campaign above the muck. It's an attack that, from where I sit, is a win-win. Either way, the candidate is off course, responding to what usually is a nothing story, and looks stupid for it. That's part of why attacking is more important that defending, because 21st century political attacks are insidious and stronger than any defense I've heard of.
[ Parent ]
I'm on the verge of suicide (0.00 / 0)
please, please everyone, please stop saying "playbook"

no "Karl Rove playbook"

no "Right Wing playbook"

no "GOP playbook"

no "Clinton playbook"

no "DLC playbook"

no more playbooks, and for that matter no more plays, and no more books either. we don't need people getting tempted.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
I agree - it is insane (0.00 / 0)
This is yet another example of Hillary putting her campaign ahead of the party.  Yes, they are running against each other, but they should be united against this kind of smear.  

Obviously the Clinton has no problem with using tactics which will severely weaken Obama in the general if he wins the nominiation.  If Obama does get the nomination are the Clintons going to stop running against Obama - or will they shift to thinking about '12?  A few months ago I would have thought even thinking this was crazy paranoid.  Now I am not so sure.  

[ Parent ]
Boy does that have little to do with what I said (4.00 / 1)
I am not a fan of the Wright attacks, and I'm not really a fan of Hillary (I am, however, a fan of the other guy), and that has nothing to do with my point.  My point was that this photo-with-Bill-Clinton tactic is a failure, and that Obama partisans should give that one up.  It's a losing game anyway.  It makes it seem like it should be a bad thing to have hung out with the guy in question, which will always reflect worse on the candidate who was originally associated with him.  It didn't work for Rezko, and it won't work for Wright.

And it fails as an argument about GE vulnerability (which the Clinton advocates Chris mentioned were ostensibly talking about), because it won't be the way the RWSM will attack her in the fall.  (Because it's a lame attack, and because no one will be able to look at Hillary and see a secret black radical.  There is a story they can tell about Obama, but no story to tell about Hillary.  I think this is part of why Rezko wasn't nearly as big a kerfuffle as Wright: there wasn't a compelling narrative to the smear.)

(Meanwhile, even if it succeeded in tarring Hillary with the same brush, why would that be good for our party?  If, heaven forbid, this takes Obama down, I don't want it to take Hillary down as well.  We still need to beat McCain in the fall, even if we have (imo) a less than ideal candidate.  It's an ugly brush.)

[ Parent ]
I think I hit "reply" to the wrong post (0.00 / 0)
I did not mean to take on your comments - as a matter of fact I agree with everything you just wrote.
[ Parent ]
Wright may have to take a back seat for the next (4.00 / 1)
few days to this passport breach.

I am curious as to what the reaction of the rank and file Pennsylvanian Dem voters will be to this scandal. At some point, Obama's gonna get some sympathy points.

But good, interesting info though.

I'm just sayin'...

Why isn't this getting more coverage? (4.00 / 1)
Two issues about Sen. Clinton's questionable campaign tactics have surfaced this week: 1. that her deep-pocket supporters are willing to bankroll a $12 mil. revote in Michigan. 2. her people are pushing the Wright issue to argue she's more electible (which is a joke when considering hers and Bill's financial and political dealings).

But the media doesn't care about this.  They only care about making African Americans look foolish and racist.

Why is that wrong.. Obama doesn't want any vote. (4.00 / 2)
Why aren't you complaining that Barack Obama doesn't want 2-3 million people to vote or have their votes matter.  Now that's a sleazy campaign tactic.

And Wright is about what a lot of people feel when someone says "God damn America"  It gives the Republican the ability to tar Obama and Wright as anti American and unpatriotic...something they have already tried  to unfairly tar him with...these videos makes it stick...this makes it credible.

Hiding your head in the sand about the impact it would have in a general election is foolish.

Maybe Obama's speech should have been about patriotism and not race. Because that's how they're going to attack him.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
That wasn't and isn't (0.00 / 0)
Obama's decision. Democrats in the state governments of Florida and Michigan got played by Republicans. Charlie Crist is still laughing about it.
[ Parent ]
blocking the revote is his decision (0.00 / 0)
because it's not in his political interst

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
No it's not (0.00 / 0)
It's up to the Michigan state government. The legislature adjourned without approving it. And Clinton should be glad they did. She would've lost more ground in terms of popular vote and pledged delegates.
[ Parent ]
There's something wrong with funding a revote? (4.00 / 1)
???

I really don't get that one.  These folks are offering up the money for MI to do with as it will, no preconditions.  The alternative is that one of the most important swing states in the nation doesn't get to vote in the most riveting primary campaign ever.  They will not just remember that this November.  They will remember it for decades!

Does the Democratic Party want that hanging over its head in Michigan for elections to come?

[ Parent ]
There is a precondition (0.00 / 0)
Wouldn't not allowing people who voted in the Republican party to vote in the Democratic one count as a precondition?

I am not arguing about whether that rule is fair or not - I am just saying I think it is a precondition.  

Listen Clinton has made it very very clear by her talk of super delegates and Obama making the wrong choice by not putting his name on the Michigan ballot that the rules of the game have shifted.  I think at this point Obama would be a fool not to make decisions based on what is best for him and his campaign.  

[ Parent ]
i agree (0.00 / 0)
i think the funding issue was overblown. I understand why Obama is stalling on the MI re-vote proposals. Given the circumstances around MI and FL I think its fair for them both to try and get decent terms to the settlement. Obama wants those who voted in the GOP primary to be able to vote in the Dem, ok so fine whatever. Clinton doesn't. ok. we know why both want it their way and both have legitimate arguments. Its a stalemate. Which is why I find the funding issue silly. They are not buying an election, they are funding it. If agreeable terms can't be reached for the election then it wont happen (which is what its looking like). if they can it will. Obama supporters (like myself) do better to stick to winning issues that uplift the candidate, and avoid silly squabbles like this.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Questions about electability (0.00 / 0)
are an important and legitimate concern of the superdelegates and Obama's relationship with Wright clearly affects his electability, like it or not.  Further, the fact that there are other issues affecting Obama's electability that haven't been vetted yet is also an important and legitimate concern.  The media has given Obama a pass on a lot of things that the GOP will attack Obama with in the GE.  The Wright videos have been available for years, the reason why they didn't come out into the MSM was because Fox News and other GOP media didn't want them too.  They waited until Obama used the race victim card to get a lead in the pledged delegates and then hit him over the head with it. Not only did they diminish Obama's candidacy, but they split the Democratic Party and left it win a nomination mess.  The timing was "brilliant".

So far the MSM has glossed over the Rezko deal.  But Obama got a $300k discount on the house the sale of which was contingent upon the sale of the adjacent lot which Rezko paid full asking price for.  No one pays full asking price.  It was a deal - a gift - and it was illegal.  Plain and simple.  But the GOP attack machine will wait till Obama tries to attack McCain for his campaign finance violations or something else along that line, they'll wait till Obama says something stupid aggrandizing himself as the ethical candidate, and then the GOP will hit Obama over the head with his ethical violations.  Just like they did with the race issue.

Then there's the war judgment - a political speech made to the Wright congregation crowd which Obama later disavowed.  The list is endless.

[ Parent ]
Outside of an Orwellian Universe (4.00 / 6)
how can it not make perfect sense to argue that the Wright affair is a genuine issue of electability? Look at any number of polls that make that point obvious.

Maybe Obama can recover from it, maybe he can't. But unless Democrats are now forbidden to speak truths only because they might somehow speak ill of a potential nominee -- even if those truths demonstrate how very disastrous such a choice for a nominee might prove to be -- why should such talk be abhorred?

Okay (2.40 / 5)
Can you guarantee me that Bill hasn't cheated on HIllary in eight years? 'cause if he hasn't, it's a record for their marriage. (you think anyone wants to see Hillary get the nomination more than Gennifer Flowers? She's got her retirement to think of, you know.)

And can we see the library donor lists? and the tax returns?

Maybe there's nothing there, maybe there is. but if there is some demonstration of how very disastrous such information might prove to be in the general election--why should such talk be abhorred?  

[ Parent ]
Because it is bad strategy (0.00 / 0)
In the end it is not good for Hillary.  It would be better for both of them in the end if they were both focusing on the hypocrisies of the criticism.  What about Robertson, Hagel etc etc who say horrific unpatriotic things about this country all the time?  Why has Fox News run with this story 24/7 since it "broke"?  All Democrats should be hitting hard back instead of fueling it.  The GOP has a HUGE media machine that we need to try to kill off.  We need to delegitimize their whole "frame".  Hillary is not helping this.  

Plus I think "electablility" arguments are generally BS.  For the rest of my life I will regret that I ditched Dean for Kerry because I bought the bull shit conventional wisdom that Kerry was clearly more electable.  (I live in California so I didn't actually make any difference, but still it bothers me.)  As other comments have already mentioned we have no idea what the GOP has in store for either of the candidates.  It really doesn't matter who it is - their attacks will be ugly, unfair, and below the belt.  Hillary is a lesbian?  Barack harassed a white girl in law school?  We better be ready.  

[ Parent ]
Hillary is a lesbian?! (0.00 / 0)
OH MY GOD!

HEY CNN!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
SD's / Pastor Wright (4.00 / 7)
Hillary has done nothing to advance her campaign in recent weeks.  Nothing, zilch.  To the extent that she has gained ground on Obama in the polls, it is exclusively due to the Pastor Wright flap and nothing else.

Since that issue arose, Obama has gone out and acted like a President, making monumental and brilliant speeches on serious topics.  Hillary has been hanging out in Michigan, grumbling about the fact that she might not get the disputed delegates from that state.

So the superdelegates have to ask themselves if the interests of the Democratic Party will be best served if our nominee is someone who won not by making an affirmative case for their own candidacy, but rather by profiting from the fact that her competition was battered by the media in a faux scandal.  If I were an SD, I would pull the trigger right now for Obama, because we've seen enough of the Clinton campaign.  It is toxic.

Well I disagree with your noble sentiments (4.00 / 1)
That's why we have party elders.  Because they know how to evaluate the factors that make you lose an election.  And this is one and they are charged with trying to make sure that this time the Democratic party wins not loses.

And I disagree with your characterization of Hillary in Michigan....A revote in Michigan could help her...but it's no sure thing...Obama, given the polling, sould easily win as well. this is not just about her winning...but his objections are just about him winning.

I think it is commendable for her to fight for the right of people to vote and contemptible for Obama to throw up one obstruction after another.

When it comes to this issue ...your candidate hasn't got a moral leg to stand on.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Mmmmm (4.00 / 1)
Well she would have a moral leg to stand on if she had been concerned about MI BEFORE she started losing the other primaries and realized she needed the MI votes. Except that she thought, and that's a quote, "Michigan won't count for anything"
Obama is certainly happy to have one less primary to worry about (And I actually agree Mi was winnable for him) and is not doing all he could for a revote but MI has nobody but themselves to blame and Hillary certainly does not have the high ground in this fight.

As somebody said, why hasnt she been pushing for a revote earlier rather than insisting the current vote be seated ? Because she is desperate and realize the January vote won't be seated so she is pushing for the second best thing. But it is too late. If it was a principled position, she should have done that way earlier. But, no. It is self-serving

[ Parent ]
How does that justify Obama's behavior? (0.00 / 0)
Whatever Hillary did and whenever she did it--which doesn't mean I agree with your characterizations of her actions--Obama is making a choice here.  What is his moral ground?

[ Parent ]
Hillary hadn't been prepped yet (4.00 / 1)
    When she was asked directly about her campaign using the Wright story in conversations with delegates, Hillary wouldn't give a direct answer. If it's a valid subject, then just admit it. Otherwise, don't do it. Evidently, she hadn't been told what the "correct" answer is yet by her staff. The Clinton's have no class or ethics. The media and Obama campaign need to press Hillary about her tax returns and earmarks. There are reasons why we haven't seen them yet (and probably wont).
   
Is it ethical to keep people from voting? (4.00 / 1)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
That question should be directed to the MI legislature (0.00 / 0)
and Gov. Granholme (sp?)
[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
everyone were FOR a re-vote, even DNC. Only Obama campaign was opposed to it. Obama flip-flopped (yes flip-flopped) first saying that he would be ok with it if DNC was OK, and when they agreed, he decided to bring legal roadblocks to it.
[ Parent ]
do-over vote? (0.00 / 0)
Hillary might have some deep-pockets supporters willing to bankroll a do-over vote, but I'm not sure that scheme could withstand a court challenge.  Seems to me that the
justice system would not look favorably on an election that was financed by one side.
On what grounds? (4.00 / 1)
I haven't heard any suggestion that it would violate any law.  I certainly don't see anything unfair about it.  The financiers would not be involved either in planning or in administering the contest, just in providing the money to bankroll whatever the MI Legislature decrees.

Do you think she would gain an advantage by it? If so, how?

Put it this way: that's $12 million that Clinton raises that she WON'T use for her campaign, but instead will donate to the State of Michigan.  Or I'll put it another way: Senator Obama is most assuredly welcome to donate if he thinks Clinton is gaining some sort of an advantage.

[ Parent ]
My goodwill for Clinton is rapidly fading (4.00 / 1)
I once told my friends that I was supporting Obama but would have no trouble getting excited about a Clinton presidency.  This makes it very hard for me to continue to feel that way.
Why? (4.00 / 1)
What's wrong with bringing it up in private discussions with superdelegates? It appears that it could be a very large factor this fall--perhaps a dispositive factor.  The superdelegates damn well need to take it into account.
[ Parent ]
Well, fair enough (4.00 / 1)
But then if she thinks it is morally OK, then why won't she answer the question when asked ? Why dodging if even she thinks it is OK ?
obviously she is not proud :)
[ Parent ]
She needs to come up with an answer (0.00 / 0)
It's kind of awkward, though.  She doesn't want to lie and she doesn't want to say publicly that she thinks it's significant, either.  At least if I'm reading things right.

She needs to come up with some spinny little way to change the subject without saying anything.  That was kind of klunky today.

[ Parent ]
Because it's a worthless and disgusting smear (4.00 / 1)
It's racist and nobody should be party to it.

Hillary always talks about taking on the right-wing noise machine.  This is the damn noise machine!  Looking the other way (or colluding with) this crap renders all her talk about being a "fighter" rankly hypocritical and meaningless.

And let's also remember that until we know who did the oppo research and fed the TV people this video, the Clinton and Republican campaigns are suspect.  Her unwillingness to condemn it unambiguously makes her more suspect, in my mind.

[ Parent ]
Each to his or her own opinion (0.00 / 0)
But my opinion is that this stuff puts Obama in serious question of losing the general election.  Very serious.  And there are a bunch of old Supreme Court justices on a Court that is already tilted so far to the right that any sane person needs rope and pitons just to hang on, so we really really need to win this one.  I don't believe that this subject should just be ignored by the Party's brains.  They need to try to figure things out behind the scenes.
[ Parent ]
I don't agree with your assessment of neutral strategizing (4.00 / 1)
Your premise is that it's an "electability argument" that party mucky-mucks need to work to solve.

My premise is that Clinton is actively perpetuating this nasty business in an attempt to torpedo a fellow Democrat in a dishonorable way.

[ Parent ]
If this first little (0.00 / 0)
republican smear (a baseless one at it) could shake him up, do you think he can withstand a GE onslaught from the republicans?
[ Parent ]
It didn't shake him up (0.00 / 0)
He responded with a landmark speech in the history of American politics.
[ Parent ]
apparently (0.00 / 0)
you didn't bother reading the news article I linked to.
[ Parent ]
Hillary, along with Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi (4.00 / 2)
and every other prominent democrat in the country should be excoriating the press for this bullshit, totally fabricated controversy.  Crazy White preachers spit out worse than this regularly, and not a peep from anybody - including our side, perhaps because we know it's b.s.

Hillary should be condemning the attacks, rather than fannin g the flames.  Hell, McCain just fired a staffer for putting together a video including the thing.

Instead, Obama is subject to a public flogging, and no one says a word.  Where are you Al Gore, Edwards, and every other big name democrat?  It's despicable.  But I guess in times like these, it's every man for himself.

[ Parent ]
so true (4.00 / 1)
and what a win it would be for her. she would look above it all, she would endear herself to african americans, she could do it in a way which would not endorse Wrights view points. Its amazing to me how frequently politicians don't see doing the right thing as a winning strategy.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Yes. (4.00 / 1)
Exactly.

Excuse me for not putting much faith in my "party's elders". Their record is not exactly stellar.  (see "Crashing the Gate")

[ Parent ]
See Chuck Schumer (0.00 / 0)
;)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the info (4.00 / 1)
That seems perfectly appropriate to me.  I would disapprove if she were pushing this nuclear general election story on the populace at large, but it's absolutely essential that the superdelegates take it into account.  I don't see how anyone could question that.

Not sure the "electability" argument from it is necessarily vile... (4.00 / 3)
But it is also a completely worthless argument right now.  I can't imagine any Super Delegate would be swayed by it unless Obama starts REALLY tanking in all the polls over the next few weeks.  It'll have to be obvious to basically everyone that Obama is completely done, and we just haven't seen that yet.

I maintain that this is a temporary blip (even without his speech), that there are still nearly 5 weeks until the next election, and that it's probably a good thing that this came out now rather than, say, early November.

Not worthless to this extent (4.00 / 1)
I think it's valid to ask superdelegates to wait and see how it pans out before committing to Obama. I agree that there's no reason to ask a superdelegate to commit to Clinton because of this, and I don't take the commitments she got yesterday as having been Wright-related.
[ Parent ]
Sigh.... (0.00 / 0)
I'm only going to point this out....how do I put this.....not that the Clintons care, but the Democratic Party should....Black folk aren't going to take too kindly to using a Minister that is revered against Obama. Silly me....what am I thinking.....they can win those Blue Midwestern and Eastern states without Blue cities, right, and the Black voters that live there? I forgot. Hillary's found a new group of Democrats  to vote in those Blue states.  
yep rikyrah (4.00 / 1)
we've been backed over by the clinton bus now how many times?

Put it this way: that's $12 million that Clinton raises that she WON'T use for her campaign, but instead will donate to the State of Michigan.

Ask yourself this: What do the people who are ponying up the 12 million expect for a return on their investment? Do you consider that a democratic process?

That seems perfectly appropriate to me.  I would disapprove if she were pushing this nuclear general election story on the populace at large, but it's absolutely essential that the superdelegates take it into account.

Would you consider it 'appropriate' for the Obama campaign to be bringing up Monica L when making his case to the super-d's? And secondly, how do you think this would play to female democratic voters with the GE in mind?

[ Parent ]
The people "ponying up" (0.00 / 0)
Aren't expecting anything except for Michigan to hold a presidential primary election.  This letter binds them to provide $12 million to fund whatever is implemented by the Michigan legislature, with no preconditions other than that the money be used for a presidential primary election.

As for this part:

Would you consider it 'appropriate' for the Obama campaign to be bringing up Monica L when making his case to the super-d's?

I don't know whether you're just trying to push buttons, or reaching desperately or what, but this is not a serious comparison point.  I expect either candidate or campaign to discuss real issues in a mature and straightforward fashion behind the scenes.


[ Parent ]
swiftboating (0.00 / 0)
I am serious. Why wouldn't Bill's philandering be a part of the inevitable smear campaign in the fall? That is a "real issue" just as much as Rev Wright is an "issue" from where I sit.

I expect either candidate or campaign to discuss real issues in a mature and straightforward fashion behind the scenes.

Would this be a "real issue" in your view?

McCain is strongest on "honest and trustworthy," and Obama is close to even with him on that measure. But it is Clinton's weakest dimension on the USA Today/Gallup poll (it wasn't asked in the CNN/OR poll). In fact, Gallup has tracking that shows Clinton to be the weakest she's ever been on this measure since 1994.

What about NAFTA?

[ Parent ]
Primary funding (0.00 / 0)
According to your link, ten people are offering twelve million dollars for this primary, and you expect me and the American people to believe that they don't expect anything in return?

This example strikes at the heart of a fundamental difference between Obama, and Hillary. She believes in leveraging power with big donors, whereas Obama prefers leveraging with large blocks of people. The former breeds corruption, and a government that I am sick of. The later may, or may not work, but that is the direction I think the Democratic party go towards.

In addition, there are other problems with a primary in MI. Namely, not cutting out the active Democratic voters that opted for Mitt last winter. Michigan has a tradition of open primaries, but it's not right to allow people to vote on both republican, and Democratic ballots.

No matter what happens, people will call foul, and a new primary isn't all just cake and icecream. I wish I had an easy answer.

[ Parent ]
I don't get your objection at all (0.00 / 0)
The letter I linked to is a legally binding offer.  They provide $12 million, and in exchange Michigan will hold a primary under its own rules.  It's all there in black and white.  Further, the people providing the money didn't even communicate with Michigan.  They communicate only through Jon Corzine and Ed Rendell.

I'm sorry, I don't see anything even slightly fishy about this.  I assume these people are patriotic Americans who favor democracy and don't want to see the Democratic Party lose its chances in Michigan.  If I were rich, I would be honored to chip in.  

As to your other objections, my only comment is that I'm not a Michigan election law expert, and don't know how weighty those objections are, but I do know that everybody involved needs to have a tool in their hands working on getting an election held.  Whatever its outcome, it's vital that an election take place.

[ Parent ]
Honest Brokers (0.00 / 0)
Being a Pennsylvanian, I know that the whole party structure is lined up for Clinton. Ed Rendell, superdelegate for Clinton, extended the time limits for ballot signatures for delegates, supposedly because of bad weather, when Clinton was having a hard time getting signatures for her delegates. Even with that help, and the support of the state party, she didn't manage a full slate; Obama had no trouble doing so by the original date.

Now, here in the last week, online voter registration has been shut down because of "data security concerns." Given my knowledge of which Republicans and Independents are changing registration to vote for Clinton (an 80-something relative who definitely could not register online) or Obama (listmates), there's no doubt in my mind about which candidate benefits by a sudden shutdown of online voter registration.

I just have a really hard time seeing Slick Eddie as an honest broker and figure he's seeing a Clinton benefit in whatever he does.

[ Parent ]
Do you think any of the superdelegates (0.00 / 0)
heard Rev Wright push the Monica story?  Riding dirty, indeed!
[ Parent ]
Dem. Party - What does it mean? (4.00 / 6)
I think more than Obama being tested here, is the Dem. party, what is it about? What does it stand for? I, like many, and I suspect like the mass of AA community, are going to say, "I'm outta here, if this is what the party stands for." If this is the kind of discussion that goes on among Dem. party insiders, I don't want any part of it. Try winning elections when you throw the candidate who has won by the rules because the other candidate wants to stress Fox News talking points. I would say the right wing would be right, the Dem. party stand for nothing. And the Clintons who own it, eat their own.
My biggest upset in this story (4.00 / 2)
is the silence of Democratic bigwigs. Obama-supporting or neutral, they should have been out there pushing back on the silly Wright sotry.
The only national politicians who publicly defended Obama were ... McCain and Huckabee !!!!!!!!!
Pathetic. They REALLY are scared of the Clintons, aren't they ?
[ Parent ]
I find it sad (4.00 / 1)
That Clinton supporters -- and party leaders -- make arguments like this.  Are there any decent people supporting Clinton?

So far we have:

Andrew Cuomo - NY State Attorney General: "You can't shuck and jive..."

Ed Rendell - Gov. of PA: "Some white voters aren't ready for a black candidate"; It's ok to vote Dem by 85+% margins but we don't actually want them in leadership positions or, god forbid, running for office as Dems.

Geraldine Ferraro - former Vice Presidential candidate:"Obama's lucky he's black"; a shout out to all the Lou Dobb's voters who blame affirmative action (and illegal immigration) for all that ails them.

When Clinton is the nominee and president these are the folks who will get high-level jobs in the party and administration.

[ Parent ]
Robert Novak has the Dem. Party pegged! (4.00 / 3)
We're a bunch of soul-less cowards. Try motivating progressives with this kind of thinking.
Here's what he says:

from Politcal Wire:
The "Nightmare Scenario" for Democrats
Robert Novak says the controversy surrounding Sen. Barack Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright provides Sen. Hillary Clinton "with a wedge in the super-delegate battle."

"And the Democratic 'nightmare scenario' has gotten even more nightmarish. If Clinton wins on the strength of the super-delegates despite trailing in pledged delegates and the popular vote, then party insiders will have blocked the historic first nomination of a black candidate -- and now they will have done so because of racial fears regarding a black preacher."

Fears stoked (0.00 / 0)
By a desperate white candidate, or at least by her campaign.
[ Parent ]
This is sad. I now lean Obama. (0.00 / 0)
Really sad.
It is perfectly legitimate to discuss the impact that the Wright videos (4.00 / 3)
will have on the general election. It is more than legitimate...it is necessary....it is essential...it is mandatory on anyone who wants to win in November

Chris himself discussed it in terms of how it might impact the general election.. he thought it lowered the odds of him winning the presidency to Obama 45, McCain 40.  Barely enough to win.

If Chris can discuss the impact why are the rest of us forbidden from discussing the impact?  It's just another double standard for the Clinton campaign....It is always permissable to question her ethics and honesty and willingness to do anythng to get elected.  I think the Obama obstructionism in not allowing the voters of Michigan and Florida to have their votes matter falls in the category of doing anything to get elected....the voters or the Democratic party are mowed down on his way to the nomination.

I disagree with Chris...I think the Wright videos lowers his chances to win to less than McCain's.  And as a Democrat I think it's important to talk about that in the primary.

Now sadly I don't expect this to really impact the primary because the nature of the Democratic elelctorate....but I think it means nominating a man who has a real serious shot at losing....And why should I be shut up because I support Hillary Clinton?

Reverend Wright is one of those things that will matter a hell of a lot in the general election...it's something all of us should consider when trying to figure out who can win in November.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but I am becoming more convinced thisn't about vetting (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Double standard? (0.00 / 0)
Do you not see the difference between a blogger discussing a smear and an opposing campaign perpetuating it?
[ Parent ]
Private discussion vs perpetuating a smear (0.00 / 0)
Not the same thing.  
[ Parent ]
Isn't that (0.00 / 0)
What TValley just said?
[ Parent ]
Clinton is having private discussions (0.00 / 0)
Not perpetuating a smear.
[ Parent ]
what smear? there is no smear (0.00 / 0)
The Rev said what he said.

He blamed America for creating the AIDS virus on purpose to harm African Americans.  He said "God damn America".  Read Carrie Budoff on voters in Pa who feel he is unAmerican.

Just because it's negative information about Obama...doesn't make it a smear.  It is so typical of Obama supporters to feel that way.  Stop hiding your head in the sand.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
The smear is (0.00 / 0)
The implication that Obama hates America, and the implication that he's too black to win the general election.  The sensationalism and the "guilty by association" is the smear.

That's what cherry-picked oppo research is designed to do.

And, as I say every time we discuss candidates on this blog, don't accuse supporters of an opposing candidate of being stupid, ignorant, naive, zombies, cultists, or "hiding our heads in the sand."

[ Parent ]
Did I accuse you of being stupid...no I did not (0.00 / 0)
Smears ar untrue things.  But the Rev. did say it.

Of course I am not saying he is unAmerican or unpatriotic....what I said and .....it's an important distinction... is that saying "God damn America" will cause and has caused many people who might have voted for him to see it that way in the general election.

You can decry those voters feelings or responses but that doesn't make the fact that they feel that way any less true.

That is an electoral fact....not a smear.

How else to characterize refusing to deal with the impact this has on the voting in November but hiding your head in the sand?

 

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
the smear is that Wright's statements are ascribed to Obama (4.00 / 1)
which is false. Obama has repudiated Wright's statements you cite. So at this point there is no there there. Any further conflation of Wright with Obama is inherently a smear, as it is guilt by association - its a particularly heinous smear in that Obama has repudiated the statements, in no less then one of the most remarkable speeched on race in a quarter century.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
It is nevertheless an electoral fact that must be addressed. (0.00 / 0)
check out Carrie Budoff in the Poltico on Pa voters.

The rabbi emeritus of my synagogue was a left wing as any rabbi in America (why I joined the congregation).  While he never uttered such bald faced words...I can tell you that often during his sermons people would get up and walk out and then resign the synagogue.  

Some people aren't buying Obama's defense and think if he said words like that once he must have said those things more than once.  

That is not a smear but a judgement they made about his judbement to stay in such a congregation. And judgement is a key pillar of his campaign.

The Obama campaign and its supporters' tactics as well, is to make criticism of him taboo by calling it a racial smear.  

It just isn't legitimate and while Democratic primary voters may be swayed by that, general election voters won't be. You can say all you want it's a forbidden topic, but they will feel it nevertheless and they will vote it nevertheless...and you make it even worse by telling them they are bad people for feeling that way

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Wright's comments in context (0.00 / 0)
Wright's comments are not "unAmerican" or "unpatriotic" when heard in context.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TR...

Watch the above videos in full before pushing this Wright issue any further.  Wright and Obama have been railroaded by FoxNews.  Clinton's campaign, and now you, are doing African-Americans and liberals a huge disservice by playing into this racist hysteria.

[ Parent ]
I heard the whole youtube (0.00 / 0)
saying "god damn america" can easily be seen as unoatriotic.  hell even the right wing preachers are smarter...they say America is damned by God for its "sins"

The are saying that God made the decision to damn America because of our behavior....Wright is saying God should damn america...

Sorry it's just too simple a declarative sentence ...nothing convoluted about it...and I bet that over time...the speech won't make it bette but harden people's attitudes

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
see my response to your comment above n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Amen (4.00 / 2)
Amen.

Absolute lunacy that they want to muzzle the Clinton campaign from exploring or having people consider a legitimate electoral concern.

It's gotten so ridiculous -- walking on eggshells with everything.

But Obama can call Hillary "polarizing" every week.

Give me a break.

Chris, just so you know, I am a Hillary supporter and I will bring up issues (including the impact of Wright) when discussing who I think people should vote for.

And I sure as hell am not going to be muzzled because Obama bloggers don't like it.

[ Parent ]
Oh please (0.00 / 1)
Poor, poor Greggy-poo. You feel so victimized and why? Because you PERCEIVE the campaign of your rival candidate as having somehow muzzled YOUR voice. But you're fighting back, oh you're fighting back, by saying to hell with civility and moral high ground! You want to be as nasty and crude and mean as you say the opponent is and you won't take NO for an answer, no matter what happens to the party or the country. Bravo.
[ Parent ]
The moral high ground does not belong to the Obama campaign (0.00 / 0)
The Rev spoke and lots of voters who don't vote in Democratic primaries but will in the general think the man has made unAmerican statements....it's that simple. Those peole will no longer vote for him.

And any campaign whose has spent its fundamental energy aking sure millions of voters in 2 of the most important states don't get to vot or have their vote counted have no moral legs to stand on.

You are not supporting a moral exemplar...but a politican with feet of clay.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
'The Rev spoke'? 'Those people will no longer vote for him'?

Seems you're conflating the candidate and his pastor, though they're separate people. Hmmmm...let's tack this way, first.

How many people do you think really were going to go Obama and now that a radical black man is his pastor are suddenly going to flip to McCain? Just interested in knowing.

Also, what does the Reverend have to do with Obama's moral high ground as regards to this primary?

The 're-vote' situation...ah...that was a great spin, really. Instead of blaming the legislatures, you, like Sen. Clinton, blame your opponent for...not being a big enough cheerleader for the re-vote. Yes, of course that means his campaign is putting its "fundamental energy" behind the disenfranchisement of millions. There's a word for such obfuscation -- demagoguery.

I do not think Sen. Obama a perfect man, some saint or demi-god. He's not, but that doesn't mean he's JUST LIKE Clinton. That doesn't mean he, too is just another dirty pol. If that were true, I doubt anyone could run for president without being called a "dirty pol". I doubt you could or I could, because the slightest problem or potential problem could be blown into a huge scandal.

That's what happened with Rev. Wright. Other than Pat Buchanan, I have seen few on Fox News, NBC, CBS, ABC, the NY Times, etc. that believe Sen. Obama to be like Rev. Wright, but the press ran with the story anyway and called it scandal against Obama because it's possible other people may see it that way. And after about a week of non-stop Wright, sure enough, the newspapers and blogs have plenty of comments about how Wright and Obama are linked at the hip politically.

This is different, however, than the Clinton campaign that has had a PATTERN of surrogates making at best stupid, at worst racist comments pertaining to their half-black opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, different than a pattern of throwing whatever charges into the open that one can find to discredit the other candidate until something sticks.

Claiming one person who actively and happily (the "fun part"?) throws mud at the other is morally equivalent to the person with the mud on their face is like blaming a house for being burnt down.

[ Parent ]
the moral high ground I meant hd to do with (0.00 / 0)
scheming to deny revotes in mich and Florida.  It is unconscionable to tell millions of voters they are not allowed to vote and choose the nominee of their party.
It is unconscionable to now be the one responsible for dragging this to the convention instead of a ending it decisively in June.

And since Barack Obama is running on judgement....like it or not lots of people will feel he showed poor judgemnt in picking this pastor and then still saying.  

I am not conflating obama and his pastor...

I chose though a very left wing rabbi and I happily stayed knowing how left wing he was...lots of others left the congregation.

I don't think his speech explaining racism is going to help enough in the general but it it may satisfy in the primary
It's a fact that lots of general election voters will feel that way and vote that way...Obama no longer has a serious shot to win ...he has a serious shot to lose.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Outstanding claims are merited by outstanding evidence (0.00 / 0)
What proves Obama stopped the MI revote and FL revote? Other than your own convictions? Especially when we know the governments of both states are refusing to play ball?

Your own words DID conflate the pastor and candidate, though it's good that you clarified what you meant, so let's call the point moot.

Why is it a 'fact' that "lots" of voters feel like Obama's speech didn't help the Wright situation? A majority of people said it did help in a recent poll. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...

So, your point is basically that Obama's a bad man because he wants to follow the rules put out by the national party that EVERYONE agreed to, but now that he's flipped on that and supports looking into a re-vote, he's not moving fast enough on that to garner your plaudits?

Think what you will of all that...

But, this story is about the Clinton campaign pushing the Rev. Wright story against a fellow Democrat, just over a week after talking very loudly about being part of a "dream ticket" with that Democrat. It's disgusting hypocrisy to me, it shows the Clinton campaign's "truce" was little more than a joke and that the candidate has few scruples. I had hoped this would be a line they would not cross. I was naive.

[ Parent ]
You don't read the news, do you? (0.00 / 0)
The Michigan party said yes to a revote plan, the DNC said yes to a revote plan and the Clinton campaign said yes to a revote plan.  They all signed off and Obama's lawyer Bob Bauer and his Michigan campaign chair, Hunter raised scores of objections....pages and pages of objections that were just meant to be a backhanded way to say no.  Because the they eanted both campaigns to say yes and Obama didn't say yes.

Don't ask about it again because you will just look both foolish and ignorant....Chris Bowers on this blog even said the obstructionism was coming from Obama.

It's contemptible and violative of the fundamentals of democracy.

No one pushed anything, you numbskull.  You are saying it is absolutely forbidden for any Democrat to consider the impact of Revenrend Wright on the general election.  
well that seems to be the Obama campaign's tactics on everything...it is forbidden to be critical of Obama becasue we feel turn over every rock to find some racial subtext....This is just another example of the kind of censorship the Obama campaign and its supporters engage in.  

YOu are once more ignorant....the rules explicitly allow 2 things which I have already stated.  
1. the Credentials committee can seat the delegation at the convention
2. the 2 states are encouraged to have a party process to legitimately get ehri delelgates seated at the convention...that's a caucus or a primary or even a convention.

You know before you argue with me maybe you should know what you're talking about.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Give me a break (4.00 / 3)
Her opponent is involved in a major scandal that may well doom his chances in the election, and Clinton's not allowed to point that out to people?

Obama has officially become a religion. Anyone who points out his crippling flaws gets sleazy ad hominems and silly non sequiturs in response.  

Major scandal? (4.00 / 1)
Are you kidding?

It's just a bunch of "be very scared of negroes" garbage.  Major scandal?  Seriously?

[ Parent ]
Here's the way I see it (0.00 / 0)
First thing: swing voters.  I'm not very complimentary of swing voters.  There are a few exceptions, where knowledgeable folks have trouble choosing, but mostly the knowledgeable people make decisions long before elections and stick with them, while swing voters don't like politics, they don't think about politics much, and they'll vote based on something that makes an impression they remember in spite of themselves.

These folks are just living their lives, working, playing, raising families in America.  They hear one of the candidates worships with a pastor who says God Damn America.  They think "I don't want God to damn America, I want God to bless America, because I live here and work here."

Really, it's as simple as that.  What makes this thing a real honest political problem is that it is just so so soundbitey.  And Revered Wright with his entertainment power just punches up the volume to 11.  All you  have to see is a 5-second clip, and a memorable impression is made.  And everybody, everywhere is going to see those 5-second clips.

Look at the polls on people's reactions to this.  There are some grim numbers coming out.

I'm not going to pretend to know the future.  This thing might blow over.  Obama has great political talent--but it's really getting put to the test.  

[ Parent ]
I agree that it's a horrible soundbite (0.00 / 0)
No one can disagree with that.  But horrible soundbite does not equate to major scandal.
[ Parent ]
so tell people about the fuller context (0.00 / 0)
http://www.youtube.com/user/TR...

Watch the full videos and share the link.  In one of the most played soundbites, Wright does little more than cite the opinion of a FoxNews analyst!

Rather than use the fact that most people are aware only of the soundbites, why don't you start telling the low-info voters about the fuller context?  It seems to me that that would be the more responsible thing to do.  And that's why it's sad that Hillary is taking the road she is taking.  Any true progressive would call out the networks' repeated showings of mere soundbites as the racist propaganda that it is.

[ Parent ]
Since when is an angry black preacher a "major scandal"? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Damaged goods. (0.00 / 0)
Progressives, liberals and right-wingers have all combined to sink Hillary Clinton.
Some progressives have said that they acknowledge that Obama is not about to push a progressive agenda, but will work to elect him anyway.

Hillary Clinton has been destroyed.
Barack Obama's main claim to fame is that he is not Hillary Clinton.

The democrats will put forth Mr. Obama as their nominee.

According to Rasmussen, McCain will beat either Obama or Clinton, but I don't believe he would have had a chance to defeat Clinton if the Obama campaign, in concert with progressives and mainstream periodicals and television hadn't savaged her relentlessly.

The democrats have replaced one triangulator with another.

I'm afraid the result is that we will have lost the election once again to the republicans.

Objection! (0.00 / 0)
Wait a minute...as an Obama supporter who finds the claims here to be both hysterical and unsubstantiated, let me try to show you how I see them and maybe see if we're starting from the right topics or not.

1) A coalition of progressive, conservative and liberal voters combined to "bring down" Hillary Clinton, right?

2) Obama is not a progressive.

3) Clinton won't be nominated.

4) McCain would never have had ANY chance and would have never been even close in the polling with Sen. Clinton had Obama's campaign, progressives and the press not "savaged" her.

5) Obama and Clinton are triangulators.

6) The Democrats will lose because of these factors.

Now, let me try to answer these claims.

---Your supposition that Sen. Clinton has been "brought down" by progressives, liberals, and conservatives sadly ignores that Clinton herself has garnered LARGE vote totals among liberals, conservatives and progressives, Democrats, GOP and independents. Her coalition, too, is broad ideologically and so it's hard to blame the same sort of coalition that has won her Texas and Ohio with losing the primary.

---You claim through weasel words that Obama is not a progressive candidate, and I'm perfectly content with letting that one go for the sake of THIS argument. Let's store that one in the memory banks, okay? Cool.

---You then move on to say Clinton has basically already lost.  Let's hold onto this as well. Not too difficult, right? Good.

---Ah, one of the big points. McCain would've had no chance against Clinton if Obama and the left and the press hadn't "savaged" her, eh? Well, this leads to a few things.

a) Firstly, if having strong, tough, "savage" competition is unhelpful to the party, why not bemoan Clinton staying in the race? This goes back to the third point. If Clinton won't be nominated, why stay in the race and beat Obama up, from your POV? The only answer? You're not really about the party, which is your right and prerogative but is still not consistent with the rest of your post.
b) On another point, or subpoint as it were, where is your critique of John Edwards? His criticisms are not important to this primary?
c) I don't understand; if Hillary is so strong a candidate, why did she get "savaged"? Especially looking at the situation we have now where she's throwing the kitchen sink at Obama? Admittedly?

---On the fifth point, where you say Obama and Clinton are both serial triangulators, we come to a bit of a contradiction. Take your second point I listed here, but this time in your own words,

"Some progressives have said that they acknowledge that Obama is not about to push a progressive agenda, but will work to elect him anyway."

Now, let's add in your comment about triangulation.

"The democrats have replaced one triangulator with another."

See the problem? You hypocritically bemoan the sort of behavior in one person, and their progressive supporters, while admittedly implying your own support for another of the same disappointing stripe.

---And so lastly, after spinning this yarn about how one candidate's coalition of progressive, liberal and conservative voters is unfair compared to another's, how one candidate's supposed triangulation is somehow more progressive than another's, how a campaign that you yourself have implicitly admitted is merely in the campaign to pick fights with the frontrunner is the one that's the victim, (the one with the "experienced, Ready on Day One" candidate, no less) after all this yarn and more, you believe that the Dems have no chance. Your own logic points to a conclusion other than that, however.

By beating Senator Clinton, Senator Obama should be the favorite, right? By your own admission, he knows how to dish it out and he can apparently take enough to win the nomination, since you declared it for him. If Sen. Clinton could beat Sen. McCain, then Sen. Obama has what it takes to beat him even worse, does he not?

[ Parent ]
Weasel words. (0.00 / 0)
In your reply to my post, which you deem to be "hysterical" and "unsubstantiated" you wrote:

"---You claim through weasel words that Obama is not a progressive candidate, and I'm perfectly content with letting that one go for the sake of THIS argument. Let's store that one in the memory banks, okay? Cool."

Here are some "weasel words" from a progressive blogger to ponder:

"Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

Chris Bowers - March 2, 2008

[ Parent ]
Your point is nonsensical (0.00 / 0)
Saying you made a point through weasel words only means you used words such as "Some people say" instead of just saying "Progressives like Chris Bowers say". I probably do it, too, but that doesn't make my point to you invalid.

To conclude, nothing Chris said in that little snippet had weasel words or anything resembling them. It seems you do not understand the concept.

Here is a wiki on "weasel words".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

[ Parent ]
Your point is idiotic. (0.00 / 0)
And nonsensical.

But if it makes you feel any better, I will say  that Chris Bowers and you recognize that Obama is no progressive.

But you support him.

Live with it.

[ Parent ]
Citing polls/ a sham party (0.00 / 0)
If commenters are citing polls, I wish they would cite a cross section instead of cherry picking them.

I would like to add that elections and political parties are about values and the courage to advocate for them and defend them. If the Dem party doesn't have any, if it folds every time the right wing attacks one of our leaders and our constituent groups, then it's incompetent to lead or present itself for leadership. We leave the field to the likes of Sean Hannity. Perhaps it's time for a genuine progressive party, and not this sham that we have, the private property of the Clintons. Let's be clear about it, throwing the most gifted candidate in a generation, who has won by the rules, under the bus because of a phony smear job by the right, runs the party over a cliff. Even Dick Morris knows that much. It would be the end of the party, starting at the top and going down ticket. So proceed with caution, supers, and nip this dangerous Clinton doomsday strategy in the toxic bud.

Please (4.00 / 1)
And this is any different than Obama publicly saying for months how Hillary is "secretive" and "polarizing" and "divisive" and she is unelectable.

Let's get real...and the superdelegates aren't stupid, they don't need Hillary's people to point to the baggage this Wright story puts on Obama.

This self-righteous crap is hilarious...

baggage (4.00 / 1)
Boy, if attending a black church because one is black is baggage, Mr. Obama's point is simply proven.  The country is not ready for racial assimilation, not ready for a candidate who is half white and half black, still not ready to address the unresolved issue of its founding document after 231 years.

If that's the reason Mr. Obama's candidacy goes down in flames fanned by his own party - what a tragedy.

Bigotry is as strong as greed.

[ Parent ]
Al Giordano cites Beckel (4.00 / 1)
Let's not forget that Al Giordano cites Beckel (a long-time Democratic party strategist) as an indication that the Clintons using the Rev. Wright story will backfire:

For those supporters of Hillary Clinton who see the story as a way of selling superdelegates on Obama's unelectabilty, the downside is far more dangerous. If the Clinton campaign is caught using the race card, particularly after Bill Clinton's 'cracker tour' of South Carolina, it will assure a Clinton defeat in November. Not only will blacks boycott the polls, so will many of the millions of young voters Obama has brought into the political process.

(Many liberals like myself, who would be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she earned the nomination, would abandon her if her campaign seeks to exploit the Wright controversy either in the remaining contests or with superdelegates.)


thanks for the link (0.00 / 0)
That's a great blog where I haven't been before.
[ Parent ]
they should push this story! (0.00 / 0)

Sounds Smart To Me (4.00 / 2)
What i thought would have been a great race for the Dems has really become very divisive...funny when Obama says he is all about Uniting america (do you think he is playing on the irony of Bush being a Uniter???) Natch ;)

This Wright story is HUGE and it may not stop Obama from winning the primary but it will defeat him in the GE. "Typical white people" do vote in the GE and I just have a sneaky feeling that they wont like being called racists.

Obama continues this weird thing that he is doing that i find very dissapointing. Maybe he has lost all perspective of the impact of his "words" which are so important to him.

Obama will come and go, but sadly, what was once what i thought a strong progressive community seems fractured and i worry about how it will get back together. Perhaps the progressive community is not what I thought it was but i always thought it would be a community that stood for something. I didnt know it was a community of people that gave a pass to someone they want to win so badly.

Not counting votes would normally enrage progressives doesnt seem to bother them because counting them may be a roadblock to Obamas win. I have no problem if Obama wins on votes but how can Obamas threat to the SD be worth anything when he doesnt want the votes to count in florida. Shameful.

I hope once this is settled...things get a bit better within our community. I hope so.


LOST perspective (4.00 / 1)
NAh....I think all the concern trolls have lost perspective.  What Obama has done is EXPOSED the overt, or below the surface racism in the progressive blogosphere.  . That is what is tearing the so-called progressive blogosphere apart, and the progressive movement.......I think for many progressives what Hillary and her campaign has done has been an even bigger eye-opener. If anything ...no matter what happens to Obama, there is going to be a big realignment among the so-called progressive community you mention........The reason the Wright story is so HUGE is bECAUSE  the spineless Democratic leadership of which the CLINTONS have been apart have done Nada, zilch, NUTTIN to try and stop this horrendous exaggeration of the wright story and throw it back in the ReTHUGS face, instead we have CLINTON SURROGATES pushing it....this is the problem... not Obama, or even the horrendous comments of Wright...AGAIN the Dem leadership fails and the DLC uses their Rovian based tactics to try and regain power.....who wudda thunk?
[ Parent ]
remember (0.00 / 0)
that Obama will have to go the GE with these spineless DLC types. And, Clintons are not part of it (atleast anymore), with Nancy pelosi and Howard Dean all but announcing their support for Obama.
[ Parent ]
Oh right! I forgot! (4.00 / 1)
Half of the progressive blogworld is racist or as Obama likes to say "typical white people" LOL.

The Wright story is HUGE because it should be. Obama says words matter, and i agree with him words do matter. What people say to other people matter. How we treat other people matters.

Obama is a big boy and he should be able to clean up his own mess. He doesn't need Hillary to do the job for him. Has Obama lost all perspective on this issue? Thinking no one would care that his pastor is so full of hate?

I notice on many blogs (especially any blog that supports Obama) the use of the word "troll" and "racist" whenever addressing anyone who does not support Obama. I think that is really so gradeschool and unproductive. It also lacks any real kind of discourse about the important subject.

Perhaps blogs are not great representations of progressive democrats. Or perhaps it is the tendancy in an online world to be as openly rude and hostile to someone who doesnt see the world the way you see it.

If Obama wins the NOM, I will be dissapointed becuase I do not see him as the best candidate. The way he has handled the Pastor drama, to me displays that quite clearly.

As an activisit for civil rights for every diverse group of people. I am opposed to all forms of discrimination and that includes gender and anti-gay discrimination. If one is opposed to such hate-speech then one should speak out against it. Not try to hush it up because it might hurt your candidates chances of election.

At the end of the day the election will come and go, but the people who have to deal with discrimination will still be left to deal with it. With out any presidents help for that matter.  

[ Parent ]
As a gay man (0.00 / 0)
I KNOW all to well the discrimination that gay people of color get from their 'white" gay brothers...So no need to preach to me...NO one said HALF of the progressive blogosphere is racist, those sound like DLC Clinton talking points......as for "typical white person"....you just exposed yourself as the BS artist I knew you were....you took that comment out of context, and we all have OLDER relatives who behave and have said things that are racially divisive and insensitive.
No one is trying to "hush" anything up...but to talk about it in cointext, from a progressive point of view, not from a wimgnut point of view!
[ Parent ]
Obama positions... (4.00 / 1)
How do you feel about this?

"I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided," Obama wrote in his memoir, The Audacity of Hope.

However, when he was running for U.S. Senate, Obama said his opposition was rooted in his religion.

"I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." Obama said.

In the first quote, Obama is saying that Christianity, his religion, says his opposition to gay marriage may be "misguided".
In the second quote, he says that Christianity, his religion, teaches him to oppose gay marriage.

Add to that the fact that his church, the United Church of Christ, does in fact support gay marriage and you come out with the portrait of someone on every side of an important issue involving civil and human rights.

In the above quotes, imagine the reaction if he had been speaking about, say, the rights of white and black people to marry each other.

[ Parent ]
LOL! (4.00 / 1)
Thank you for the laugh in the office. Hummor always makes the day better. :)

It's hard to stop laughing and type a response...but i will.

I think Obama has been trying to "hush" this for a while both through his self serving speech and most recently by sending a photo to NYT of his beloved pastor with Bill Clinton at a prayer breakfast. LOL.

I suggest, not preach as i am not into preaching nor screaming for that matter, that you reread your previous post and that may help put my comment into context of yours. Which I found to be very dismissive and more importantly divisive.

Out of context? I think Obama is on his 2nd or 3rd revison of his granny/typical white people comment and it is pretty clear what obama supporters would say if hillary had said that commment.

Obamas comment is divisive and not at all about unity. Discrimination of any kind is unacpetable. I do not  surround myself with any relative who is homophobic, racist, sexist and biggot of any kind? When i encounter that kind of language I confront it right then and there. I don't sit down and say nothing. I understand that may be the exception to the rule but if people do not stand up and confront hatred and bias nothing will change.

Words do matter.

Also, since i am not a Clinton operative, i would like to know where i can find the talking point you spoke about:

NO one said HALF of the progressive blogosphere is racist, those sound like DLC Clinton talking

Can you provide a weblink?

Also, in reference to the discrimination that exists in the gay community. You are absolutly right. There is blatant discrimination between everyone there, including cultural background, class and age. Yet, the biggest discrimination comes from the churches and church leaders. Shameful.

[ Parent ]
I do not surround myself with any relative who is homophobic, racist, sexist and biggot of any kind (4.00 / 1)
you must have a perfect family or a very small one. enlightenment is not always best won by having a full blown out fight at every backyard picnic. for the vast majority of people its not so simple to have a showdown every time some stupid remark is made at a family gathering. being empathetic to the complexities of family relations and emotions does not make one an agent of discrimination or a patsy.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
If one is opposed to such hate-speech then one should speak out against it. (0.00 / 0)
oh, so you did see Obama's speech.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Obama did exactly what you said he should (0.00 / 0)
If one is opposed to such hate-speech then one should speak out against it. Not try to hush it up because it might hurt your candidates chances of election.

Obama:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Rev. Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.


[ Parent ]
Did he???? (0.00 / 0)
I was referencing the lack of outrage by progressives at such vile hate.

Not try to hush it up because it might hurt your candidates chances of election.

I want to know if Obama did confront his pastor when heard such speech while in the church? 1st Obama said he never heard such language and then said he did hear such things.

Very confusing.

While everyone has a right to their views and religion for that matter. If someone wants to sit in church being yelled at like bad school children, it is most definitly their right and decision to do so.

He can say the pastor is like an uncle you don't always agree with but if I had a pastor who was spewing hate like that i would not sit there and say nothing. I most certainly would not be a memeber for 20 years.

Obama is spinning this, or at least trying to and not very well for that matter if you consider the typical white people remark.

Frankly, i dont care if the pastor is a hateful man and very very angry. I really dont care. I thought Obama was above all of that...but he isnt. Instead of unity we only are left with more division.

Discrimination is a much bigger issue then Obama running for president.

[ Parent ]
before you condemn his church (0.00 / 0)
learn more about it.  watch the soundbites IN CONTEXT.  The pastor is NOT a "hateful man".  Far from it.

The brief soundbites grossly misrepresent Wright's actual beliefs and sermons.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TR...

I WISH my parents had taken me to a church like this.  Seriously.

[ Parent ]
His Church is free to do what they want (0.00 / 0)
I don't condem. I have no idea about the church other then their website and his speeches. I don't really care about the church one way or another.

The pastor has some issues. I know religious people love screaming and yelling and all that...people like it...but for me, being yelled at or listening to someone screaming like that is very uncomfortable, so its something i would dread having to go to.

Thankfully, in this country, one can go to a church like that and praise as they see fit. Thankfully, I do not have to go to a church like that.

I doubt that the video is a misrepresentation of the pastor, after all, these videos were for sale on site. It works for the church, people like him  so why back peddle. O

[ Parent ]
Ethics? (0.00 / 0)
So your "ethics" only let you go as far as reporting the perpetuation of an obvious smear? How about taking the next step and calling this our for what it is?

I think your "ethics" need a major overhaul.

Clinton attacks from the right - again (0.00 / 0)
Is she an honorary member of the McCain campaign, or what?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
Now in the intrest of fairness (4.00 / 1)
has anyone noticed how the Obama campaign is pushing a photo of Mr. Wright with Bill clinton? Does the Obama campaign think that association with Mr. Wright is a bad thing?This, i feel is more of a negative attack

Before you start attacking clinton campaign, note that the Clinton campaign is not pushing the story that Mr. Wright is evil, they are just saying that if such a non-issue can affect  Obama's poll numbers, he will have a more difficult time in GE. This is not same a pushing a picture of Wright with Clinton (and effectively saying Wright is a bad person), that is negative campaigning.

They are pushing the hypocrisy (0.00 / 0)
of the Clintons, who are pushing the Wright stiory to EVERYONE!
That is why they are showing the photo
[ Parent ]
that was in the interest of fairness? :) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
this line of arguing is getting beyond tiring (4.00 / 2)
"its not that she's pushing racial buttons or anything, its a legitimate question, I mean, maybe he never really stopped snorting cocaine, he seems pretty white don't you think; and he sure looks like a muzlim mhamid teerist in that outfit. not that mhamid terrists are bad, we just don't know what kind of person might be lurking at 3am and someone needs to get the shot gun if its a black guy. so, will a black gut shoot a black guy who is raping your little white girl? its just a legitimate question. we're not saying its right, just saying these public perceptions of him are worthy of discussion. that's all. oh and look at this, here is that Wright video again, let me play it for you."

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
that was not my line of argument (0.00 / 0)
read it before you comment. It was about his ability to withstand the attacks that you mentioned. Not that the attacks are true.
[ Parent ]
this is a line of argument that is bogus (0.00 / 0)
"the Clinton campaign is not pushing the story that Mr. Wright is evil, they are just saying that if such a non-issue can affect  Obama's poll numbers, he will have a more difficult time in GE."

You and I and everyone else knows that the Clinton campaign is not out there saying its a non-issue. She has never ever said that, nor has she insinuated it. Every time they mention Wrights name it is to reinforce the false meme that Obama is a scary black man that hates America. If Hillary thinks its a non-issue, that Obama is being falsely slandered she can say it. Until then the line of arguing is bogus.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
People Say (0.00 / 0)
People are saying Hillary likes chicks.  I'm not pushing the story I just think that if people hear the totally unsubstantiated story how Hillary may very well have had a female lover while at her hippie ALL GIRL ivy league undergraduate school it could hurt her in the GE.  

I mean I have no reason not to believe her when she says she has never had an inappropriate relationship with a woman.  And no, I do not think the fact that some of her closest friends are lesbians has any bearing on this story.

I am not pushing the story - I am just saying what other people are saying.

The documentary, "Outfoxed" showed time and time again how Fox News uses that line constantly.

[ Parent ]
Lets keep speculating if Wright will hurt Obama in the general (0.00 / 0)
and ignore all that stuff Obama said in his speech. i wonder if Hillary has yet seen or read the speech finally, given how important she thought it was.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
She'll get around to reading Obama's speech (0.00 / 0)
its on her list - right after reading the latest NIE.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
It's Still a Double Standard (4.00 / 3)
Let's put aside for a moment the Obama vs Clinton comments. Glenn Greenwald in the past week proved definitively that the Wright issue, when pushed by Republicans, is a clear double standard or worse.

Wright's words are not very different from comments made over decades by Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, and other right wing pastors. Worse, while Obama has embraced Wright in his personal life and had him on his campaign team, for decades the Republicans have publicly embraced their pastors in the White House and pursued their bigoted social policies and given them a seat at the table on foreign policy.

There's probably tons of video available to show these right wing pastors saying similar things as Wright and Republican Presidents and others embracing these pastors. My guess is that in a McCain vs Obama matchup, this issue is a stalemate as a result.

Because it is such a huge double standard with the Republicans, it's really only an issue within the Democratic party. To my ears, it sounds like the Clinton camp is doing a Willie Horton, using a "scary" black man to frighten super delegates. That's politics. But if you step back, as Glenn Greenwald did, the issue actually is about bigotry pushed by pastors of both parties. Whether you think he did a good job or not, that's the issue Obama tried to address in his "More Perfect Union" speech this week.

If Greenwald is right, all Democrats should push the double standard meme whenever the Wright issue comes up. We should not slice and dice our own candidates on this issue, not least because it hides the fact that Republicans have embraced religious bigots far more than Obama has ever done (for one, Obama is not President and I don't believe Obama or Clinton would have pastors involved in setting their Middle East policy). Surely Clinton has other issues to push with superdelegates that do not let Republicans off the hook and needlessly damage a potential candidate for the general election.

I think (0.00 / 0)
Whoever posted about Obama's post-partisan rhetoric failing him now was right, and I am a fool for not seeing it sooner. When you say you're above party affiliation, you will likely see your fellow party members not there when these kinds of attacks come out against you.

The double standard is outrageous indeed. Obama could've raised it himself, but did not. He could've said, "Well, I didn't put him on an advisory about foreign policy, it's not like I actively sought out his endorsement for political purposes, I came to Rev. Wright to get in touch with the Lord only." But he did not. Not necessarily good or bad, as Obama might've come off as whiny then, but hey that's what it is.

The way Wright and Obama met as opposed to how McCain and Hagee or Parsely have become BFF is a story that works in Obama's favor if spun to be about politics over principle. Obama only wanted to hear about the Lord and social justice, McCain's campaign sought out Hagee and Parsely during a run for president to help bolster their 'credentials' with the evangelical Christian community. (Which OBVIOUSLY, if we're to believe the press, says something damning about the evangelicals)

[ Parent ]
Gads, this whole thing is really getting sickening (4.00 / 1)
Let's go back to square one here, shall we?  It seems that it has now become a "given" that Pastor Wright is "hate-filled" a "radical", a "racist", and any of a number of other epithets, all based on several apparently carefully edited snippets and sound bites that someone fed the MSM and they all-too-happily broadcast ad nauseam. Now I always tend ask "Cui bono?" when trying to identify a culprit. "Who benefits?" Gee, these sermons by Wright are several years old, yet they suddenly get the endless loop treatment right after Gerry Ferraro repeatedly sticks her dainty foot several times into her mouth on pretty much the same subject that these videos are being used to attack Obama on: RACE. Cui Bono?

Beyond that, I wonder how many of those accepting the sound bites at face value have ever looked at the full context of the actual sermons that were delivered?  

Well, here, thanks to laderrick and others over at DKos who have found and posted the "context" of those sermons, for those who are willing to listen and judge a man based on ALL of what he said, rather than a slanderously-selected few words.

I know that will not satisfy the partisans here, who know their candidate cannot win any other way other than to try to drag her oppponent throught the mud, but perhaps those who have genuine concerns might be willing to watch and determine whether this is a REAL controversy or one manufactured for political gain.

I did, and I know what my conclusion is.

Soldiers are required to do their jobs when politicians fail to do theirs.

Exactly (4.00 / 1)
the brief soundbites grossly misrepresent Wright's actual beliefs and sermons.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TR...

Watch the full videos and realize how FoxNews has absolutely played white Democrats like a violin.  Wright is a mainstream, African-American, religious LEADER and academician, and he's no Anti-American extremist.  If a person watches the full videos and concludes otherwise, then I would honestly wonder why that person is even a member of the Democratic party.

Rather than express concern about what the regular working-class Joe would think, ELEVATE THE DISCOURSE and help bring the FACTS and the FULL CONTEXT to light.

[ Parent ]
Yes, Clinton Campaign Is Pushing The Wright Story | 141 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox