It was clinton they wanted to run against. This is old rove politics here.
Obama is going to win the nomination and go on to win.
Ignore the right wing Politico spin. How did they even get to exist?

there are different margins of error for the HRC vs McSame group than the BHO vs McSame group

However on the head to head HRC vs BHO, Obama did better

I've been meaning to write something about this.

Rev. Wright has proved he is certainly no friend to Senator Obama.  If he was, the man would've kept his mouth shut instead of forcing himself back into the news.  Now, Wright is saying that attacks on Wright are attacks on Black Churches, furthering the current racial divide and killing Obama's goodwill.  I can't decide whether the man is an idiot or a lunatic.  Maybe both; there are plenty of stupid crazy people.

The Obama Campaign is in tailspin.  Remember, the VERY popular Governor of NC, Easley, endorsed Clinton recently.  And idiots like Wright decide it is a good time to pile on again and remind people of Obama's weaknesses.  

I tell ya, I am truly terrified that Rev. Wright's inability to keep his mouth shut may destroy the Obama Campaign.

Forget the polls, the Republican spin, etc.  Rev., Wright is an absolute disaster for the Obama campaign and it appears they are powerless to do much about it.

Rev., Wright's appearances this past weekend were a disaaster for the Obama campaign.  And while Rev., Wright may be a lunatic, he is not an idiot - he knows exactly what he is doing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...

Wright's appearances were designed to inflict as much damage on Obama as possilbe.  And if Obama can hang on to win the nomination in spite of all of this, the book that Wright is now writing is due out shortly before the fall election and will be another time bomb ready to go off at the worst possible moment.  

There seems to be a lot going on behind the scenes here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opi...

All of this has really been too much to deal with and so disheartening.  So many have worked so hard on this campaign and it is truly distressing to watch one person sabotage it.  

I am utterly appalled by Rev. Wright's remarks both yesterday and also in his church -- the government created AIDS to kill minorities, Zionism is racism, Judaism is a "gutter religion" (per Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam), etc., etc.  Utterly appalled.  What on earth does Obama do now?!?

Wright has found out that the spotlights are on him, and he's taking advantage of it.  I disapproved of the man's words, now his actions.  Basically, I disapprove of the man in general. Obama has to get publicly angry at what Wright is saying, and it can't looked staged.  Something has to piss him off.

Obama tried the "I can't disown him" thing but it seems as if that wasn't good enough for many white working class voters or Wright himself. I don't think today's "well, I might not know him as well as I thought" won't cut it, either. Do you think if Obama forcefully rejected Wright and maybe even left the church, this episode might actually help Obama both show strength and leave the issue behind him in the long run?  

If nothing else, Wright has now given Obama the opportunity to reject the man and the church without repudiating his prior association.

This is Obama's chance, he'd better take advantage of it ASAP!

Reverend Wright has given him the perfect out.

Obama can turn a lemon into lemonade here by acting decisively and immediately.  And, from a realpolitik point of view, he would probably not lose any of the 90+% of black Americans who are supporting his candidacy by severing his ties to Wright.  

Time for some serious, genuine emotion (anger) from Barack Obama.  No "Mr. Cool" on this one, Obama's gotta totally slam Wright, period.

about his "denunciation" of Judaism.  Wright asked "Where did I say that?"  No one could point to anything he has said.  Instead, they're imputing to him the words of Farrakhan.  Now we're getting into some shaky territory here, because what's being foisted upon us is the idea that if someone you've had interaction with has done something objectionable or said something objectionable in the past, and you've shown any sort of approval of that person but are silent on the controversy, the controversial words or actions of that person can be imputed to you.  Isn't this what the Ayers controversy is about?  Do we want a standard that says if Farrakhan is objectionable then anyone who has dealings with him has adopted his viewpoints?  Then wouldn't it be permissible to say that since Obama worked with Ayers and did not denounce him he must have approved of Ayers' extremism?  

Wright pointed out that his church has outreach, apparently some sort of peace project, to Israelis and Palestinians and he CLEARLY stated that he believes in the right of Israel to exist and that he believes in reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis.  

With regard to Farrakhan, he said Farrakhan is an extremely important figure in the African American community and is "like E.F. Hutton".  He noted that Farrakhan has promoted many things which are beneficial to the African American community such as self-sufficiency, discipline, education, hard work, self-respect, sobriety, and fathers taking care of their families.  We as white middle class folks may find Farrakhan extremely off-putting and indeed offensive for his racism, anti-Semitism, and demonization of the white race, but from Wright's point of view in a community in which the children are born to single teenage mothers who are often substance abusers and whose fathers are not even known to them, and where young black men routinely kill each other over real or imagined slights and take no responsibility for the children they bring into the world and take no responsibility for educating themselves, then Farrakhan's positives are going to outweigh the negatives in Wright's mind.  He may not agree with the man about everything, but in his world he sees no reason why he shouldn't be willing to work with him.

is exactly the opposite of the fiery black leader of American pop culture that so frightens whites.  If anything, Senator Obama is Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable.

It's the impugning and imputing and conflating that's turning this -- as a former Clinton supporter put it to me yesterday -- beautiful man into someone out to get or get even with whites.

Bottom line is Senator Obama is not perfect.  Just like the rest of us.  He's made errors of judgment and has perhaps put his trust in people he shouldn't have.  Just like the rest of us.  McCain embraced Bush.  Clinton voted for war.  But, to my mind anyway, what separates Obama from McCain and Clinton is that he is still growing and apparently has the ability to continue to grow.  And that is what will make him a great president.

 Wright seems to want it both ways. He wants to offer praise to Farrakhan (and the Nation of Islam does many laudable things, so I'm sure Farrakhan does as well), while only saying that some things he says are objectionable, without telling us what they are.

Why can't (or won't) Wright say, "Judaism is emphatically not a gutter religion, and Minister Farrakhan's statements to that effect, and other statements of his, are anti-semitic and odious, and I reject them?"

Is it fair to ask him? I think it is fair to ask any member of the clergy a question about their tolerance for other religious beliefs, but beyond that, Wright has now firmly thrust himself on the national political scene.

 

You're saying that to satisfy the naysayers Wright has to get up with his clipboard and tell us "I approve of many things Farrakhan does, but here, in order to make sure the white suburbanites out there understand I'm not as extreme as Farrakhan, is my list of things I don't like about Farrakhan.  I'm sure he and his people will understand that I'm just trying to assuage white suburbanite fears and anxieties, and that he and the NOI will continue to work with me in our never ending struggle to save our community."  Oh yeah, that will go over just fine.  

As for the other statement about Judaism being a "gutter religion", let's think about how he should approach that question.  Hm, how about "Someone asked me whether I hate Jews.  No, I don't hate Jews.  And I just want to say that Judaism is not a gutter religion.  Next question."  Boy, that sounds almost as good as Hillary's "as far as I know Barack is not a Muslim" quote.  There's just no way he can toss that language out there without having it misconstrued.  So, lots of luck with that.  Maybe we need to wait until he's in a public forum again and have you run up to him and ask him the direct "Is Judaism a gutter religion" question and he can answer you directly then.  Otherwise, just how does he introduce it without sounding like he means something other than what he's saying?  Considering how much stuff he's being hammered for which he DIDN'T say, I can't blame him for not just wading into the issue.

But his "gutter religion" remark and other anti-semitic sentiments are pretty well known. Fairly or not, they are a part of what Farrakhan's public persona is.

The problem with Wright is the praise. Once he did that, it is fair to ask what, exactly and specifically, are you are praising, and what, exactly and specifically, are you not praising.

The idea that we should not even ask this question because his answer will be misconstrued is, IMHO, ludicrous.

Lowell and I went around with this question regarding Ed Rendell speaking at an event in Philadelphia while he was mayor. It was apparently a NOI event, and Farrakhan was there. Rendell praised the NOI, which I had no problem with. but I don't believe he even acknowledged Farrakhan's presence at the event (although the YouTube video certainly makes clear that Farrakhan was a central player).

Now, I defended Rendell for appearing at that event. But it would have been fair to have asked him, "Hey, Mr. Mayor, you appeared at an event at which a well-known anti-semite was apparently an organizer. Do you agree with those beliefs?"

And I have a pretty good idea how Rendell would have answered. He'd have left no doubt.

And more to the point, the question is not whether one "hates" Jews, but how one perceives Judaism itself. Actually, I don't think Farrakhan hates Jews at all. I've read he actually maintain good relations with many Chicago-area Rabbis. His "feelings" are not the point.

I don't know your religion Catzmaw, and could care less about what it is (or whether you are a believer at all, for that matter), and if Jews as a people are just a tad sensitive to the anti-semitic ranting of people who otherwise seem like lunatics, well, I guess I'll just plead guilty to that and be done with it.

I am really at a loss at what is exactly the problem with asking Wright about this. It is not the fact of his association with Farrakhan that prompts the question, but the nature of it, and the fact that he chose to praise Farrakhan, and the fact that he has now chosen to thrust himself into the public eye more directly than in the past.

A Lowell post earlier today said Wright was anti-semitic.

Can either of you clarify this as to specifics?  Hopefully, it's something more substantive than not demonizing Palestinians or acknowledging Farrakhan's influence (though a thing of the past surely) on black empowerment.

For the record, though I've stated previously that IMO there's a lot of truth to what Reverend Wright has to say, as unpleasant as it may be to listen to, he's now proven himself not only an utter jerk and a self-absorbed egomaniac, but, as a proponent of black empowerment, downright stupid in endangering the candidacy of the first serious black candidate for president.

And I don't care, except in the most general of ways abut how I care whether you are anti-Semitic (actually, I care more about how you feel than about ho Rev. Wright does).

All I'm arguing is that it is a fair question to ask.

Personally, I think Wright's refusal to answer is more likely than not simply a triumph of practical politics over ethics.

in that way, but in the end he's just f***ing with all of us. Obama got it right today in utterly denouncing this guy.  Sadly, something tells me this won't be the end of it.

Obama suddenly had to ditch Wright without recrimination from the black community due to Wright's craziness, and this opportunity Obama had to show how strong he is by coming out against Wright, I have to wonder who's really crazy.  I mean, seems kind of convenient that Wright, after weeks of silence, suddenly turned into the everywhere crazy pastor, a lightning rod for everyone's approbation, and voila!, Obama has been compelled to denounce him.  

Wright is a very brilliant man with an extremely sophisticated mind.  Are we witnessing some sort of play on his part to bring the matter to a head and pop it like an overstuffed zit?  Just wondering.  

trying to claim that Farrakhan really said "Zionism" is a gutter religion, which is utterly nonsensical since "Zionism" is not a religion, Judaism is.

Anyway, here's some sampling of Louis Farrakhan, who Wright certainly appears to be defending (and standing with Nation of Islam bodyguards -- nice touch!):

*"These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood. It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality, [and] Zionists have manipulated Bush and the American government [on the war in Iraq]"

*"Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community."

*"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man."

"Now we're getting into some shaky territory here, because what's being foisted upon us is the idea that if someone you've had interaction with has done something objectionable or said something objectionable in the past, and you've shown any sort of approval of that person but are silent on the controversy, the controversial words or actions of that person can be imputed to you"

its utter crap in my book but both sides do it ALL THE TIME including Raising Kaine by the way

Obama is doing an excellent job.  If people still have lingering questions after this I don't think Barack could ever count on their support no matter what he would say or do.  I can't wait until he's our President.

The Sixties culture wars, Vietnam, black power, feminism, and, as always in America, the racial divide, are impediments -- the cosmic barnacles on the hull of the ship of state --  to turning this country toward the future.

Yet, despite the electorate's ideological baggage, or perhaps because of that baggage, any honest assessment of why past actions have brought us to where we are today is politically off limits to the three remaining candidates.

The cliched stakeholders illuminate why progress can't gain traction.  Conservatives clinging to their fantasy of a white picket fence America where everything was peachy keen are for McCain, the man who has literally embraced Bush.   White high school graduates and white women of a certain age want to resurrect the Clinton years.  And the college educated and worldly and the young and, yes, blacks who want to march away from the past toward the future, are the ones supporting Obama.  Unfortunately, the latter group does not seem to add up to 51%.  Not yet anyway.

As we saw in Pennsylvania, fear is still trumping hope.

Reverend Wright has said America is damned.  Perhaps he is right.

The first step to healing, progress and solutions -- or getting undamned -- is admitting you have a problem.  

It appears that the majority of the American electorate prefers to blame everybody else for our problems.   Ironically, that is The Problem.

And that likely means there's more pain ahead.

we don't have racial divides in this country today, I believe we have just seen that this is simply not the case.  The fact is, white America and black America often see (and experience) a very different America.  Sadly, we've still got a long way to go...

It's so ironic that now it's being wrapped around Obama, who wasn't even there, and not Hillary and Bill, who were there.  

Now I wonder why a Clinton supporter would set this up? Any Clinton supporters out there with any ideas? I heard that Bill was going to take a bigger role in the campaign. I wonder if this is the result.

Once again, Obama supporters make their man sound as defenseless as a kitten against the bullying of the big bad Clintons.

Complaining about the other side being unfair won't work against Clinton any better than it will against McCain. Exit polls showed PA voters thought Hillary's attacks were too nasty ... then voted for her.

The Clintons do owe the party SOMETHING, don't you think? Don't you think they need to be sure the party wins in November even if Obama is the nominee? Waiting to hear from you.....

I don't care if a Clinton backer had a hand in setting up stop 4 of the Jeremiah Wright Let's Set Race Relations Back 30 Years '08 World Tour. Stops 1-3 were effective enough that 4 didn't matter.

So you want Clinton to give up? That's party unity - stop trying to make a comeback? As long as Obama doesn't have the delegates to win, she has every right to keep campaigning within the bounds of fairness.

I'm saying Obama has spent the last two months campaigning not to lose. It's time for him to campaign to win.  

Hillary Clinton to admit that she planned 9/11, and tell us that she personally flew the plane into the Pentagon. :) (Just in fun, Rebecca)

I mean, even if that's the case, does it make the situation with Rev. Wright any better? No. End of story.

The national media being what it is, they will keep asking him about it, because they can.

Pundits will pour over every word to decide if he has sufficiently addressed the problem.

They will do everything, except actually listen to what the man had to say.

Hopefully, they will just get tired of it and it can all flame out. Don't expect them to be embarrassed or shamed by the vapidity of it all, however. We know that doesn't happen, thanks to Al Gore's invention of the Internet.

...pretty much "all vapidity, all the time."  Or how about, "we misreport shit that doesn't matter, you decide whether to watch it or not" (and the answer should be "NO!")

A global context for what we're struggling with in an email from a French friend:

Karl Rove is a piece of shit and I could live very well without the Wall Street Journal.

Yes, it will be a very difficult fight because people like that know that Obama is their enemy, a strong one because he has no hate. They will try everything to destroy him. But, please, don't get pessimistic. This man is the chance of our generation. It is unlikely that we will see anyone like him before the end of our life. I wish I could help.

http://www.avnery-news.co.il/e...
Look at the piece titled "Two Americas" - for some reason I can't link to it directly, but it is easy to find once you are on Uri's website.

In short, Uri gives a ringing endorsement to Obama, and has this rather amusing anecdote:

"In the same spirit, one could say: The American presidential elections are much too serious to be left to the Americans."

I could be offended as an America, but I chose to see that the man has a point; and accept his endorsement heartily.