I found passed through (originally from the NY Daily News) this at Salon.com:
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted. Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds. A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister). It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter.
Here's the link.
Ordinarily, I would be leery of the NY Post. This story also appears prominently at Beliefnet,com, a Murdoch property. Murdoch has given a fundraiser for Clinton, so I am not sure what he (Murdoch) gains here, except I have previously speculated that he aims to use his various media to destroy Obama first and Clinton later. However, the first Clinton administration was good to big media. So who knows?
On a blog linked to her Web site at www.reynoldsnews.com Reynolds said in a February post:
"My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you"
to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency."
Here's where it gets interesting. Reynolds also had a blog at blogspot.com, which she has taken down. The article isn't on her www.reynoldsnews.com website either. And the cache there is hard to read.
But here's a cached version that is reeadable. Read it here.
It is true that Reynolds has spoken flatteringly of Wright. But then too she apparently refused to bring him to the National Press Club at an earlier time because he wasn't newsworthy. What changed? I can't fathom. (Talk About a Set Up! )
who was sitting next to him at the head table for the National Press Club event."
If she is innocent of trying a take down of Obama, then why did she scrub both of her blog articles (at two different sites), in which she endorsed Hillary. She obviously is hiding something.
Sow how could her "organizing" have been a political dirty trick? Perhaps the people to whom she handed out tickets. But beyond that, how does the fact of his appearance there in any way, shape or form connect to Clinton?
Finally, just on principle, I think the burden ought to be on establishing facts to show someone is guilty of something, rather than inferring guilt based on any question that begins with the words, "If he/she is innocent, then why..."
Darth HRC forces at work.
How convenieeeeeent!
Obama's problem with Wright wasn't Hillary, Obama's problem with Wright was Wright.