The racial graph

Two things: 1) The narrative of this primary campaign, around the accusations of racism and the accusations of race-baiting, seems set in stone; 2) Obama is one psychologically unique person.

HCD Research has some innovative technology that they've used for the Wright rant. I've long wanted to put it to use myself, it ought to do away with the costly focus groups that most campaigns use (or at least supplement half of them). They were able to spot the SwiftBoaters early on in '04, and were pretty much spot on with seeing its influence. This is a completed graph of users watching the rants by Jerimiah Wright:

Its self-explanatory, but if you want to see it in action, go here. The bad news for Obama is that Wright is so toxic. I knew it in the visceral reaction that I had to it, and went off with an emotion-laden blogpost. Us secular warriors just don't get it; I happen to have had a Christian fundamentalist upbringing and know what America's church-goers saw.




Rasmussen already showed similar results, with only a 8% favorability rating for Wright. I was amazed that 66% of those polled had already heard about or seen Wright. 73% see Wright's comments as racially devisive. Among Republicans, 70% were less likely to vote for Obama, among Independents, 57% are less likely, and among Democrats 44% are less likely. Where this appears to hit hardest for Obama is among the youth. There's a question of "How Important is Faith and Religion in How You Vote?" and the number saying its important are higher in the 18-29 aged group than any other age segment, which I've seen in other polls as well. 62% of those aged 18-29 said they were less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright, higher than any other age group. And it's yet to completely trickle out among this age group, due to their non-mainstream media habits. Only 58% of those aged 18-29 have viewed it, lower than the other age groups.

The big question is how much of this is an introduction and branding of Obama nationally, as opposed to Wright. I think we could hope that its more of the latter, but that's going to mean Obama has to make it that way. He's tried to straddle the issue to date, and not separate fully from Wright. There's another video here, with HCD tracking, which shows the response to Obama himself on the issue, and he does better. That's the good news. If he can reach people, and satisfy their questions, he can possibly turn it around.

I don't think the way that he's pitched the speech he's going to give tomorrow, as talking about "the larger issue of race in this campaign" will suffice to put away the issue of Wright. Particularly if Obama  continues with the angle of saying about Wright that "the caricature that's being painted of him is not accurate." Wright is in Farrakhan land, as far as the American public is concerned. If he tries platitudes and rhetoric, everyone will wonder about what they heard an hour after the speech, and resume the questions about Wright's influence on Obama. I also don't think his telling white America why black America has different standards of preaching will fly.

Let me put it this way, Obama's not going to change minds about what they see in Wright. The dismissal and repudiation of Wright must be addressed, and in a way so complete that there is no doubt that 20 years of a close relationship does not mean a thing. If Obama wants to keep Wright as part of his life, and try and convince that its a net positive, he's going to pay a deep price.

Those who think this is something that will be forgotten as long as we ignore it enough have had their head in the sand for the first days of this explosive issue. Obama's camp relies deeply on polling, and no doubt, they too see the writing on the wall.

The only way out of this is for Obama to have completely disavowed and distanced himself from Wright-- a long time ago. Now, he's stuck with it as part of his negative brand. The core of his message, of leading us to a post-racial America and his having good judgment skills, is all thrashed.

The partisan knives among the Republicans are out and won't go away. Those supporters that cleverly thought he got it all out on a Friday dump were naive. His negatives are already nearing the same level as Clinton. Obama has never had to face a general election test. He has subscribed to a post-partisan worldview in a world that is through and through caught in an extremely partisan time.

Those whom believe in him the most don't see it yet, but there's a lot crashing down around Obama right now. Is his speech the 'one chance' to turn it around? You tell. I must say though, that seeing this part of Obama, and getting beyond the marketing crapola of his faux-evangelical 'movement' campaign, I've come to like even more where he's coming from as a person. This is not a pretty and wholistic world, it's messy and ugly and out of sync mostly. There are some good parts too.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

301 Comments

It won't even be remembered come November...

Your candidate lost Jerome now it's time to get on board and bring your followers over to Obama. Can you do that?

by Erik 2008-03-17 04:40PM | 0 recs
I may be confused...

...Or maybe I missed it on the news, but can someone please tell me when Sen. Obama received the requisite number of delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination for the office of President of the United States on the first ballot?

Until either candidate receives a majority of the delegate votes cast, there is no winner and there is no loser.

My candidate, Hillary Clinton, has not lost.  Your candidate, Barack Obama, has not won.

Until either candidate reaches a "majority vote of the Convention's delegates" (that's from the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention in case you were wondering) this race is not over and there are no winners or losers.

by Andre Walker 2008-03-17 04:48PM | 0 recs
It's over...

FL is not re-voting. Obama will lead in every metric. Go discuss it on the last post and come back here when you catch up.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
Is it not true...

...That Article VIII.C.7.b. of the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention says "A majority vote of the Convention's delegates shall be required to nominate the presidential candidate"; and

Is it not further true that Appendix B of the Call for the 2008 Democratic National Convention sets the total number of Convention delegate votes at 4,049; and

Is it not further true that a majority of the 4,049 Convention delegate votes is equal to 2,024.5 Convention delegate votes; and

Is it not further true that as of March 17, 2008, neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama have the requisite number of Convention delegate votes required to nominate the presidential candidate; and

Is it not further true that if Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have the requisite number of Convention delegate votes, then any assertion that either one of those two candidates have "won" or "lost" is incorrect?

by Andre Walker 2008-03-17 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Is it not true...

Speaking of delegates - there's a "Breaking Blue" post about another superdelegate for Obama.
But earlier today - MSNBC reported this wasn't an addition because she was already a delegate.

I don't believe they can be counted twice.

by annefrank 2008-03-17 05:25PM | 0 recs
How is Clinton gonna get superdelegates?

If she can't win caucuses. It's over. Get used to it.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: How is Clinton gonna get superdelegates?

I can't help but notice you've done everything you can to change the subject. Are you able to discuss the content of the diary?

by Denny Crane 2008-03-17 05:40PM | 0 recs
I'm replying to space cadets like you Kirk

It(wright) won't matter because the recession will be so bad that no one will want McCain/Bush/Republicanism economic policies.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm replying to space cadets like you Kirk

I'll take that as a "no, I can't discuss the content of the diary.  I'm busy changing the subject".

by Denny Crane 2008-03-18 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I may be confused...

BHO is very likely to meet the threshold before the convention (I'd say around middle of June). Care to take a wager? The only reason this ain't over thus far is because the superdels are waiting for the "vetting" process to play itself out.

Once Obama gives his speech regarding the role of race in the nomination process thus far (and in American society in general), the superdels will have had all their concerns addressed (in no small part due to Hillary fighting tooth and nail for the nomination; so she definitely deserves kudos in that respect).

A whole can of whupass is about to open up on HRC regarding her prevarication on things like earmarks, Clinton library donations, business/PAC/lobbyist connections, tax returns etc.

Face it. Every single so-called scandal that was supposed to have decimated the Obama campaign has, heretofore, done squat to slow him down. Obama will most likely be the Democratic nominee for POTUS. And he's gonna win with or without your vote. So stock up on the Xanax -- you're evidently going to need lots it!

by pitahole 2008-03-17 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I may be confused...
Of course, Obama doesn't need boomers, the working class, Catholics, or Latinos to win the General.
He'll have all those Repub and Indy "Dems for a day" standing in longgggg lines to vote for HIM.
by annefrank 2008-03-17 05:33PM | 0 recs
right

and Clinton does not need Obama supporters

by kindthoughts 2008-03-17 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I may be confused...
Bill Clinton himself said that most Democrats think both candidates would make a good President, they just favor one or the other right now. I really don't find this notion that even a significant minority of people will wake up after we choose a nominee, either one, and say "well... I used to care about the economy and the courts, I thought health care was a good thing, the war mattered to me, but, well, gee, I guess I'll just vote against my conscience and my values and everything I wanted for the country, 'cuz gosh darn it, the other person beat my favorite candidate." I really can't see any likelihood of that happening outside a few pissed-off residents of the blogosphere. I suppose it's a bit more likely if Hillary were the nominee; Obama's supporters do have a higher percentage of Independents and weak Republicans who might switch over. Even then, though, they're looking for some level of change, and McCain sure likes more of the same even more than does Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying either can just take the others' supporters "for granted". There needs to be reaching out and inclusion. There needs to be some time for people to adjust and come together. But I've seen people jumping up and down saying that people will never support <X> if they support <Y> now... and it very seldom happens that way. Polling data also partly contradicts your view, or at least says it makes less of a difference than you're thinking. In Ohio, for instance, both candidates poll the same vs. McCain. That's true in some states. In others there's a little swing either way... in a few bigger swings. But in very few of them (Arkansas may be the only counterexample, and there are obvious reasons for it) is the swing so pronounced that you could conclude that the voters are saying, if not Hillary/Obama than McCain, in any truly large number.
by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-17 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I may be confused...

I'll take that wager. What are we wagering that no one will meet the threshold before convention? That is unless a mutual deal is strike by BOTH candidates?

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I may be confused...

Ohmygod ... that is so pathetic.

Your guy's chances of winning in November are absolutely crashing down all around your feet (just look at the reaction on that graph) and as long as he wins the nomination you really don't care ... I'm not sure there's a word for that level of cynicism. So much for "hope" ...

by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-17 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: It won't even be remembered come November...

Only in Monte Slobovia do the generalissimos declare elections to be over months before people have a chance to vote.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 06:00PM | 0 recs
Exactly, and Jerome is not even the same person

Exactly, and Jerome is not even the same person he used to be.

He has thrown away all of his values and ideas. And I think all of it is because he has always believed a Black man cannot win the White House.

Jerome has sold everything he believes in because of fear.

And that's sad.

by Dave Dial 2008-03-17 06:15PM | 0 recs
well...

...i doubt that jerome's gonna cry himself to sleep tonight worrying about what you think of him. this adolescent "vote the way we tell you to or we won't like you" stuff doesn't work over here. we're adults. jerome's an adult. markos is an adult too, he's just having a relapse right now.

jerome knows that people will be better off is the democrats win in november.  obama's had a pretty good run, but he's run out of gas on this one. the superdelegates serve a purpose- they prevent the party from throwing away elections they don't have to lose. after obama melts down over this wright mess, he's gonna look like the untested figure he always was before he started all this "movement" hokum. obama's never been in a contested statewide election, much less a national one.

by campskunk 2008-03-17 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: well...

Again - its sad that you actually HOPE that Obama "melts down" over this instead of preservering and overcoming it

I might support Obama, but I don't want hillary to "melt down"

Get a grip.... if you want hillary to win so badly that you want Obama to have a melt down just for her to win the nomination, then you have serious problems

and your comment about  "obama's never been in a contested statewide election, much less a national one."..... neither has hillary...anyone could have beaten Lazio, and that no-namer she faced in 2006 was a complete joke

by stevepdx5 2008-03-17 06:40PM | 0 recs
So

We disenfranchise Florida and Michigan and hand the Republicans a nominee that can be cast as racist and someone that consorts with felons. Brilliant!

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-17 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: So

Tough one.  Not sure which candidate you're referring to.  Gravel?

by fogiv 2008-03-17 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: So

Clinton is NOT a racist, how many times does it have to be said.  And yes, she consorts with felons, but what does that have to do with the issues?

by shalca 2008-03-17 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: So

I assumed he/she meant Obama.

by annefrank 2008-03-17 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: So

MediaFreeze definitely meant Obama.  Shalca was trying to be witty.

by Montague 2008-03-17 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: So

key word - trying

by shalca 2008-03-17 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: So

Are you sure he meant Obama, I mean the felons thing certainly fits more with Hillary than Obama.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-17 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: So

Yep, I'm sure.

by Montague 2008-03-17 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This is just the start and I was watching CNN Election Center, where Steve Kornacki of NY Observer said this is powder material for GOP.

If we nominate Obama now, down-ticket people in WV, MO, KS, AR, etc. will be hurt. Gone are those comments that Obama was "clean". With this "spiritual mentor", that is not the case.

by American1989 2008-03-17 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

And I remember when the pundits said that Bill Clinton couldn't be elected in 1992, and when they said that Hillary Clinton couldn't be elected to the Senate in NY, and when they said that Bill Clinton would have to resign because of the accusation of the affair with Monica.

Really, folks, you might want to rethink your faith in the punditocracy.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

there is a big difference. people can forgive and forget sex scandals; but for this American hating preacher, this does have problems. And, our country isn't completely over the issue of race, so this brings up the divisions. hillary in NY was just another thing

by American1989 2008-03-17 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

So what? This isn't Obama saying this ... it's someone else. This is waaaaay overblown.

by Oregonian 2008-03-17 05:05PM | 0 recs
I'm speechless

Some of the commenting here goes beyond naive to utterly deluded.

Here is reality:

Obama may be the likely nominee but this Wright stuff is radioactive. Combine that with the "inexperience" factor and McCain will win in the fall. And win big.

I don't like the idea of a President McCain at all. But that is the most likely outcome at this point.

And please, stop blaming those of us who have the "audacity" to point this out.

by OtherLisa 2008-03-17 05:58PM | 0 recs
as a New Yorker

no one (sane) ever said Hillary wouldnt win New York.  that is, unless you are referring to McBush's people, who appear to be Hillary's only chance at challenging Barack at this point.

by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-17 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Clinton's Spiritual Mentor -

Supposedly the most important influence in his life -
Say, "God damn America!"?

Now, it's one thing to say "I am not a crook."
And another to say, "I did not sexual relations with that woman."
Or that someone has all the advantages because he is a black man.
Or that some candidate is a monster.

But to be intimately connected for most of his life with someone who says, "God damn America!"
is simply not going to go away.

It is here to stay.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 06:05PM | 0 recs
It truly is incredible that they still pretend ..

not to "get" the fact that this stuff is TOXIC in American politics, that "God Damn America" is going to play really poorly juxtasuposed with war hero/POW McCain. Have they completely lost their minds and forgotten what elections in this country are like? If Repugs could make John Karry a traitor just imagine what the average voter will think of Obama by the time the Repugs are done.

Apparently, they don't care about winning the GE-they just want to stick it to Clinton supporters and prove they were "right" and the promptly lose the election for dems. All I want is to pick a candidate that actually knows how to win and the one who has been sittin with Rev God Damn America for 20 years ain't the ticket.

by berkshiretrueblue 2008-03-17 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Obama is a muslim manchurian candidate.

Obama is an angry black racist christian.

Which is it? These two sentiments are diametrically opposed and would make any sane person's head spin.

by pitahole 2008-03-17 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

It's neither.  Obama is running a campaign based on his sound judgement and his ability to "get it right the first time". He has said a thousand times that his judgement is better than Hillary's.  His two decades long friendship with a man of Wright's character and bizarre beliefs speaks volumes about that judgement.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-17 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

  I just don't get it.  Hillary gets more sludge thrown at her by the right-wing then anyone, but you go on supporting her anyway.  Now that the right-wing is going after Obama, not only do you think this somehow weakens him, you join the attacks.  

by cilerder86 2008-03-17 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This is Obama's own creation unlike Hillary's.

by Sandeep 2008-03-17 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Of course right after watching those videos people are going to have a negative reaction -- how could they not?  I'm an Obama supporter and I do too.

The real question is a week later how much difference it's going to make.  And that depends on how much people like you, Jerome, keep this issue front-and-center.

Polling from after this broke don't seem to have moved much.  You say Obama's negatives are at Clinton level -- got a reference for that?

by EvilCornbread 2008-03-17 04:41PM | 0 recs
Exactly...

Like how Jerome posts it right after a post all but telling Clinton that her campaign is over. Jerome is still living in a world prior to FL not re-voting.

by Erik 2008-03-17 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly...

Hmm, you do realize that Florida not revoting may play right into the Clinton plan, right? She won FL, and won big. So a revote MAY have helped Sen Obama. Without a revote she will continue to state that she won X delegates and Y popular vote more.

Only thing Sen Obama gains by not revoting is losing again.

You know SD don't really care about the official revote, right?

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:38PM | 0 recs
If you think that the vote will count as is...

you are delusional. FL re-vote was her only path to winning some metric. Now she has no chance. Thus it is over. Get used to it.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: If you think that the vote will count as is...

No delusion, just strategy. Nothing to get over really.

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: If you think that the vote will count as is...

Great strategy. Like blocking punches with your face?

by Erik 2008-03-17 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: If you think that the vote will count as is...

No like leaving uncertainty and doubt about the state of the race because one of the largest states has not had its votes counted.

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 06:31PM | 0 recs
Honestly, no re-vote in FL means

Obama has to knock her out beyond FL wins.

You can't have Obama as the nominee who tried to ignore FL.

Are we just itching to lose the election or something.

No FL re-vote, means Hillary is the winner of 1.7 million vote contest of historically high numbers.  And Obama is left trying to game FL worse than George Bush.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-17 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: If you think that the vote will count as is...

The only thing certain right now is that Obama is TOAST in the general election.  No speeches, no denials, no waffling, no carefully worded statements can counter the 30 second ads that will run all month long in October showing the damn america clips with pictures of Ghaddafi and Farrakhan.  Maybe they'll mention Obama's book or Michele's comments.  And they don't even have to make this stuff up like they did with Kerry.

As much as bloggers hate McCain, he is pretty widely considered to be a decent and competent guy in the human world.  Republicans (who are not neocons), independents, and even Democrats will be able to vote for him without holding their noses.  We are not running against Bush, as much as our strategy will be to make him look that way.

I hope the voters in PA, NC, and the superdelegates save us from this guy if tomorrow's speech is anything other than a suspension of his campaign.

by ricosuave 2008-03-17 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Yes, there's a reason why Obama is giving the speech. And don't you think that will get a lot of publicity, thus reframing coverage of this issue?

Obama may or may not be effective, but one cannot assume that he will not be -- not based on the very frail evidence so far.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

His big speech is make or break. I KNEW the polls would be showing this over the weekend. He needs to be honest, he needs to be forthcoming, he needs to appear STRONG. Evasiveness will not help him here. All that will help him will be a serious, strong defense of why he went to that church. And that will require a defense of Jeremiah Wright that goes above and beyond the call of duty.

If the polls don't improve, even if Hillary doesn't win the nomination, he may have already lost. This ain't a religious thing, it's a question of credibility. If voters think that Obama has painted himself another color (this is NOT a racial remark, I swear) while bragging about being untainted, that's very bad.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Oh, and please understand I voted for Obama and am rooting for him. I just root for the Democratic party more, and if it looks like Clinton has a better chance of winning, I'll have to jump ship.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 04:59PM | 0 recs
how exactly does McCain's wannabe VP

win the Democratic nation?  plot out her path for me?  since Super Tuesday the Super Delegates have been +47 Barack and -7 for Hillary, and the non-super delegates have been equally disproportionate.

explain to me the path to the WH for Hillary?

by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-17 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: how exactly does McCain's wannabe VP

Once again: the path is easy. No one wins the magic number, Hillary comes up with the popular vote win, Barack Obamas numbers go south. Watch remaining SDs rush over to the Clinton side.

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:37PM | 0 recs
Hillary isn't going to win the popular vote

not that it matters anyway.

The super delegates will continue coming to Obama, especially after the FEC reports are made public in early April. The Super's will go with Obama because he is a better fund raiser - and it isn't even close.

The preacher thing doesn't matter. I was at a gathering over the weekend in PA, with friends that are fairly middle of the road. Typical Philly suburb voters - some Reps, some Indys some Dems. They didn't care about the preacher crap - what they cared about is Bear Stearns losing 50 percent of their market cap in a day (last Friday before the Sunday fire sale). The worry about the economy and the markets was palatable. Typical discussion: "My kid wants to go to XYZ University - How am I going to afford it? - the economy sucks and the market is scary - why are we spending money in Iraq?". That's what is important, the economy and Iraq. Everything else, including the preacher, is background noise.

Obama is going to put Iraq around McCain's neck and let him sink with it. HRC can't do this. Sure she can win a GE at the margins, but Obama is going to sweep in on a wave. Iraq and the economy - that's what's important, not something that some preacher said.

And yes - Obama is going to be the nominee, just look at the math. He will end up with more pledged delegates, more votes and more money. All you HRC diehards are in for a rough landing.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-03-17 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary isn't going to win the popular vote

fundraising support that doesnt translate into support for other candidates (these unitemized gifts are a problem for this reason) is not likely to convince anyone of Obama's ability to anything for anyone other than Obama.

by hctb 2008-03-17 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Clinton's 3am ad flopped monumentally using this same graphing technique.  I should say it flopped with everyone but Clinton supporters.

They loved it.  Everyone else, not so much.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 308/3_am_tested.html

by enozinho 2008-03-17 05:17PM | 0 recs
Jerome isn't flogging the issue?

Heh!

My Diet Coke just splashed my flat screen.

:-)

by Bill White 2008-03-17 05:04PM | 0 recs
With or without Jerome...

this issue is never going to be far from front and center from now until Nov 4th if Obama is in it that long.

by JimR 2008-03-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

If someone polled whether we were more or less likely to vote for Clinton based on the Watergate scandal, I'll put money on the fact that it comes out an overwhelming "less"!

Polling is misleading in general, but this is so obviously a useless poll I truly can't believe are believing it is relevant.

It's true, 8+ months prior to the election, Obama's campaign hasn't been helped, per se, by this story. But damn, he's handling it well, blitzkrieging the press, and turning this into what I assume will be a positive issue with his speech tomorrow.

It's just unbelievable that everyone in the blogosphere continues to believe that every single news story spells the death knell of every candidate's candidacy. Learn from your past! Look at your past comments and see how ridiculously hyperbolic they were!

by Jon 2008-03-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Really? You'd put money on people being less likely to vote for Clinton based on Watergate? I do believe I'll take that wager. Watergate and Clinton -- hmph. I thought she'd already been blamed for everything, I guess I just forgot that Nixon was her fault too.

by Iphie 2008-03-17 05:50PM | 0 recs
And people won't care about what Wright said when.

the economy is in total collapse due to Bush/McCain/Republicanism economics.

by Erik 2008-03-17 04:42PM | 0 recs
Are you serious?

1932? 1980? 1992? Just stop it. If you get caught don't respond. But don't just pull something out of your ass

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: No proof, no evidence

Like you just did?

by KnowVox 2008-03-17 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: No proof, no evidence

Are you serious?

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: No proof, no evidence

Yep. No proof, no evidence. Just another lame, off topic attempt to find an excuse for Obama's total lack of judgment.

People DO care what Wright says. That was the point of Jerome's diary.

And people won't care about what Wright said when the economy is in total collapse due to Bush/McCain/Republicanism economics.

by KnowVox 2008-03-17 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: No proof, no evidence

It's fucking March not October. Try playing that video when the economic news is front and center all day and winter is starting after a summer without vacation.

No Proof no evidence. Universal says that economic downturns cause voters to stick with those that got us into the mess. Because the second Hoover term really pulled us out of the depression. Or that landslide Carter victory over Reagan. And for you Hillary supporters we all remember Bush I beating Big Dawg on that campaign slogan it's the economy stupid.

No I didn't provide evidence to make Universal look stupid. You guys are all right we had second terms for Hoover, Carter, and Bush. We don't change in bad economic times.

The country will not care about the economy they will only care about Wright.

head explodes

by Erik 2008-03-17 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: No proof, no evidence

Yes, it's March, not November. Thank you for your brilliant insight.

Jerome cites evidence that right now -- IN MARCH -- when we're choosing our nominee -- that the American electorate believes Wright is TOXIC. (See HCD Research, Rasmussen, et al.)  Obama's support is evaporating into the thin air from whence it came. That evidence remains UNREFUTED.

by KnowVox 2008-03-17 06:38PM | 0 recs
As stated in the previous post

FL will not have a re-vote. Clinton will not be our nominee. UNREFUTED.

by Erik 2008-03-17 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Off topic strawman

Yep, disenfranchising millions of Florida voters is a winning strategy for Obama. NOT.

by KnowVox 2008-03-17 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Off topic strawman

The news I was reading said that there was general agreement among the candidates and the party for no re-vote.

For example: "A supporter of Clinton, Wasserman Schultz had staunchly opposed a re-vote."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/f lorida.primary.decision/

by Timetheos 2008-03-17 08:57PM | 0 recs
Charlie Crist said today--Democrats

"eed to seat their delegates."  "Florida voters enthusiastically voted in record numbers for their candidates and no doubt the Democrats will do the sensible thing"

What a challenge!  George Bush honored the first count (might have even won a re-count because Panhandle votes and military overseas).

DNC going to count NO Florida votes?  We're going to have to count FL.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-17 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No proof, no evidence

you can see that your evidence is restricting incumbents, right? Yeah. boo. Hillary Clinton<not the incumbent.</p>

by hctb 2008-03-17 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you serious?

I just gave you three examples of economic downturns  and the changing of parties in the whitehouse because of it. I feel like Lewis Black right now.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: And people won't care about what Wright said w

And whoever gave you mojo for that comment is lost.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: And people won't care about what Wright said w

I don't have to look either. they are Hillary supporters like you. You cite no evidence and don't dispute mine.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: And people won't care about what Wright said w

And what evidence have you cited?  I have no idea what your background, but you really seem either quite naive about the power of propaganda particularly in bad times or you are willfully spoiling the waters.  I will at this time give you the benefit of the doubt and concede your naivite.

by anya109 2008-03-17 06:29PM | 0 recs
I'm naive...

answer me this. What do you think would be more important to the country: the economy or a Presidential nominee that's banging cocktail waitresses two at a time(godfather reference)?

by Erik 2008-03-17 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm naive...

Gore v. Bush.

Apparantly banging cocktail waitresses. I mean interns.

by hctb 2008-03-17 10:32PM | 0 recs
We are talking about Obama-McCain...

Clinton ain't gonna be the nominee though. There will be no FL re-vote. It's over get used to it. We are talking about Obama-McCain.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:50PM | 0 recs
people do care and will care about

Obama's judgment.  Besides the economy is not obama's strong point.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2008-03-17 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: And people won't care about what Wright said

"the economy is in total collapse due to Bush/McCain/Republicanism economics."

absolutely, yes.

but what is the main issue of the day for Obama?  Obama's connections with Wright. I thought he is a uniter and is above fray. But his priority is preparing a speech in order to protect his political ambitions.

some people are asking for Hillary to withdraw. I think they are asking the wrong person.

by pleaseno 2008-03-17 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Oh, goody. More of this crap, spoonfed by mydd.com.

What a crock. And for what? To prop up the DLC, anti-grassroots candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

by Oregonian 2008-03-17 04:43PM | 0 recs
DLC endorsed Obama--

grassroots organizing for Hillary happens right here.

Personal attacks, well maybe they're the "change you can believe in."

by chieflytrue 2008-03-17 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: DLC endorsed Obama--

You are misinformed.  Here is the link: http://www.dlc.org/.  Please read at the top - "Meet our leaders - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton."  

Please, please folks, if you are going to use the internet, please use it to research before you state easily disprovable fables.

by zadura 2008-03-17 10:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

So is this your justification for keeping this story going, because that's what you're doing:

"The partisan knives among the Republicans are out and won't go away. Those supporters that cleverly thought he got it all out on a Friday dump were naive. His negatives are already nearing the same level as Clinton. Obama has never had to face a general election test. He has subscribed to a post-partisan worldview in a world that is through and through caught in an extremely partisan time."

Go right ahead, legitimize Republican partisan knives......because, hey, people, they're gonna come out anyway!

Jeez, Jerome, I thought you were smarter than that. Maybe you should go back and read Lakoff.

It's our job to tear down stupid attacks and to delegitimize tactics that keep us from talking about what's important to US.

Or.....let's just say fuck-it....I mean, wer're caught in an extremely partisan time. So let's start that real hard stuff, you know, later.

This is piss-poor judgment on your part, sorry.

by james c 2008-03-17 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This story is going to go on regardless of whether Armstrong never writes another post on it. The real question is how do respond to it, not how to pretend it's not happening. On that front,. although Armstrong is biased, there is at least some effort in his post, if you read it, to talk bot that very issue.

by bruh21 2008-03-17 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Yes, Jerome and others, how about some sharp analysis about how Obama should respond?

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

That'st he question i've started to ask. Hopefully he want spend time trying to appologize for his background. that would be the worse mistake. To pretend there is something that he personally needs to apologize here for. What he needs to do- in my view- is to go on the offensive, and called the willie horton moment here what it is,, and then return to talking about unity,b ut also integrate finally and at last into that. Now whether voters will let him is a gamble, but clearly to me it was alwyas delusional to think race wouldn't be a wedge issue.

by bruh21 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I think the will do this tomorrow. I just wonder how this site will respond to remarks in philly. Attack or applaud? My money is on attack.

by Erik 2008-03-17 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Hell no!!! The entire problem is that voters thought Obama WAS beyond race. So he's got to paint his support of that church as beyond race, too.

Something like... It's a community church in a poor part of town that does a lot of stuff to help local kids. It uses racial rhetoric as a way to connect to a group of people that are not that well-educated and low on the social ladder. Obama doesn't agree with that rhetoric because he himself is biracial, but he thinks that they do a lot of good for the community and inspired him to do the same. Then he needs to shift the focus to their new pastor, Otis Moss, who is far less controversial.

Might as well throw in their diatribes against the evils of gangster rap music and violent media as well. It will resonate with white people and help in neutralizing the racially divisive perception of the church.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

If Obama starts talking about racism tomorrow, it's dumb as hell. MOVE PAST IT. PERMANENTLY.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
You're kidding, right?

If he says any of that he's dumber than I think he is.

by JimR 2008-03-17 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: You're kidding, right?

No - it just represents part of the support that's been implicit all along. We support you so long as black is only food coloring. Hence the comment about bi-racial. He's not like those nasty blacks. I diaried on this subject a while back- it's called the "magic negro"

Here's how it goes from an LA TImes Article:

"Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."

Many of his supporters thought this was an attack him. It was actually an attack on the mentality that voters have. Unfortunately I do agree that i may not be possible for him to give a more complex view of himself because he hasn't laid the ground work for this until now.

by bruh21 2008-03-17 05:23PM | 0 recs
Oh... ok.

As long as I can still project my fantasies of curative black benevolence on him.

/rolleyes

by JimR 2008-03-17 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Pfft. That'd be horrible. That this church supposedly "uses racism for good ends" is the worst thing Obama could possibly say.

To transcend race, Obama's answer should go all the way back to what he's been saying already -- that what drew him to the Church in the first place is how he was inspired by the stories of the suffering of Jews to recognize the universal human story that is the suffering of the black community as well.

Which is also the suffering of poor Mexican immigrants, which is also the suffering of poor people of every color -- not in the same degree of course (he ought make that clear) but still the same human suffering.

The problem with Wright isn't the anger that he's feeling for that suffering, but that he fails to recognize the universality of it.

That's how one trascends race.

And as for how he hasn't severed his ties with Wright his answer ought be even simpler IMO. "You don't abandon a father, you don't abandon a child, no matter how some of their words may appall you".

Instead of disassociating himself from Wright, Obama should make clear there exist ties of love and mutual history that he won't abandon -- he denounces Wright's words, he doesn't throw his loved ones away

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-17 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I do like yours better. I just meant to say that he's got to do something in a way that both defends his relationship with his church/pastor while demonstrating that he truly understands that the statements are offensive and why.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 06:11PM | 0 recs
Yes, how to respond

What do you think he should do?

I tend to think that it is too late to respond in a way that will fully extinguish the story;  Obama should have done that before declaring his candidacy.  

If Obama responds directly and specifically to the worst of the pastor's verbiage, countering it point by point, then I think he can say for the rest of the campaign "I addressed that and I'm not going to discuss it further."

by Radiowalla 2008-03-17 05:00PM | 0 recs
I read your obit at dkos a while back.

Whoever wrote it did a good job but still, I'm happy to see that the rumors turned out to be greatly exaggerated.

by JimR 2008-03-17 05:32PM | 0 recs
Heh....nt

by Radiowalla 2008-03-17 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Seems to me he's doing the right thing.  He joined the congregation 20 years ago, that would make him about 27 at the time.  What Wright had to offer may have seemed a good fit when he was a young man.  That's not a surprise.

People keep talking about his association with the church as going against his stated beliefs and the way he is selling himself to the public.  But has he ever, in any of his writings, legislation or speeches given any indication that he shares any of Wright's more inflammatory beliefs?

Obama himself is the best evidence that you can live in a harsh world, with harsh words and come out of undamaged, and even better for it.  If anything, we Democrats should be thankful that we are pretty close to nominating someone that can translate the anger and vitriol of the disenfranchised into a message that a large majority of Americans can get behind.  Ever since we started losing elections, progressives have been wringing their hands about how we need to get better at selling our own ideas to the public.  Obama clearly has a knack for that.  American is ready to embrace a new way to talk about social justice, fairness, and personal responsibility.  That's what he brings, and if he learned it while listening to angry calls for change, it's all the more inspiring that he has chosen another path.

 

by enozinho 2008-03-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

The problem is, even if he nailed it, the reach is going to be minuscule compared with the done deal. We have a really big problem here-- there's a reason why the Clinton campaign has gone dark.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-17 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Exactly.  He is toast.  The videos will not be disappeared.  He should make this speech and then he should look to see about a way to remove himself from the race in a graceful manner.  The longer he prolongs this, the more lasting long term damage he does to his image and to his political career.  You Obama supporters are living in a dream land. And he must not allow Fox to get him in a lie about being in the church at one of the sermons - if that happens, kiss his Senate seat goodbye.

by anya109 2008-03-17 06:57PM | 0 recs
What NOW?

What, then is to be done? Clinton supports ask Obama to withdraw and vica versa! Clearly neither one is fair or good for the party.  A withdrawl by Obama at this point gives Clinton the nomination without having had the chance to decisively beat him, weakening her nomination/mandate.  Same thing if you try and get Clinton to bow out.

We've been very good in the past with possible solutions or at least level-headed ideas about what might work or not work.  I've not seen much so far.

So HOW do we beat the Swiftboaters!?

A suggestion:

If there were a way to flood the net with more Wright stuff that was more palatable, then people would get a diluted version of the guy.

I first saw the clip where he says no one ever called Hillary a N*, and I have to say that it really didn't affect me (not the same thing as saying I agree with it).  My point is that if anyone can get their hands on more Wright stuff, we can make a concerted effort to "Reverse Google Bomb" the most negative and inflamitory stuff out there.

At the same time we need to focus our efforts not on a weak defensive but on a strong offensive on McCain over the war, economics, etc.

Obama has the skills to dance his way out of this mess and he better because he's still likely to win the nomination.  Don't believe me?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lfw_-F6GR9s

Tell 'em.

by jlars 2008-03-17 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

i didn't say "pretend it's not happening." he should be working, instead, on delegitimizing this sort of attack in general. from both sides. from republicans. from whomever. stupid and irrelevant is stupid and irrelevant, and it should be called such and torn to the ground.

there was a time before the iraq invasion when it wasn't seen as being a possible response. the connection between iraq and 9/11 was just to flimsy. it was a bad argument. but then the media started treating invasion of iraq as a legitimate response, as a newsworthy topic, as something that should be debated left and right.....

i don't think jerome's response is the same, but i want to use the parallel to highlight my point; namely, i think it's vital that if we're going to fight against these tactics, if we're going to fight against smear campaigns that keep us preoccupied with blowjobs, land deals, fundraisers, and pastors when these smear jobs campaigns come from the right, we need to change the way smear campaigns are framed.

i don't think it's easy, and trying to do it is not necessarily gonna make it so. but if we have any respect for ourselves and for what bloggers here and at kos and openleft and elsewhere in the left-blogosphere (not to mention media matters!) have been fighting for, we need to fight for legitimate and meaningful political discourse all the time.

let's not be enablers to the debasement of political culture that became the norm during the gingrich years. it's ugly, it's stupid, and frankly, we're not very good at it.

by james c 2008-03-17 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I am pretty much agnostic. I don't see a lot of what you see here. I see basically a blogger who is biased, but not so much that he doesn't see that Obama my be our nominee so he's worried about a legitimate issue. You seem unable to admit that, and deal with its complexity accoridingly.

by bruh21 2008-03-17 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

i'm able to admit that he's worried; i'm unable to see it as a legitimate issue. to me it's not very complex. it's simply not the jerome who wrote CTG with markos.

this is from the website advertising their book:

"the book hails the new movement that is changing the way political campaigns are waged."

my point is simply that if we're going to change the way political campaigns are waged, and if jerome is going to be the standard bearer for that change, it won't be like this.

by james c 2008-03-17 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

So Axelrod exemplifies how Chapter 4 works?  Have you actually read the book?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-17 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This demonstrates faulty logic and is a dishonest argument. Unfortunately, it only underlines my worries about right-wing tactics being embraced by the left. While I certainly see this on both sides of the Democratic primary, I'm most worried about it on this site because I come here most often, and it looks increasingly like a mirror image of redstate.

To clarify: your response shifts the terms of the discussion from my claim that legitimizing this type of attack (by engaging with it as "serious," as worthy of discussion) is in fact using the same smear tactics that republicans have used (so successfully) against the left over the past 15 years. According to your response, for my claim to be valid, Axelrod now has to exemplify the change your advocate in chapter 4 of CTG. Wha?

So, unless he exemplifies this change, my point about you legitimizing right-wing tactics is wrong. See how that works?

It's the same thing as responding to Obama's call get beyond partisan stalemate in Washington with "So Wright sermons exemplify your view of 9/11?" Or, to use a classic right-wing example: In response to the claim that we went to war on the back of faulty and exaggerated evidence, you hear "So you would rather have Saddam in power?"

You're not as good as the right at this (note how their example also implicates me in a position that's also morally questionable (being a fan of Saddam). But...with this Wright flap...those bashing Obama are getting there. If you look through the comments on mydd, there's a lot of moral outrage directed at Obama, from people who say they just can't live with a president who's beliefs share those of the pastor on youtube. It doesn't matter what Obama says, but he's morally tainted by views he abhors.

You're sliding down the slippery slope. Again, you should not legitimize smear, you should point it out for the smear that it is and work hard to wash it, and the type of debased political discourse it generates, out of the picture.

If you don't change political engagement at this level, you'll see no end to the likes of Rove, Morris, Penn, Axelrod (not to mention Malkin, Limbaugh, Matthews, Kristol....). We may never see an end to them anyway, but I think we can take the fangs out of this sort of politics, keep the nails well-trimmed so they can't draw blood.

Only then will we truly see a change in the way political campaigns are waged.

by james c 2008-03-18 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

For example, this via Reuters:

"David Paterson, 53, the former lieutenant governor who was sworn in to replace Eliot Spitzer on Monday, told the Daily News he agreed to speak about his marital difficulties in response to rumors about his private life that had been circulating among reporters in the state capital of Albany. He flatly denied rumors that he had a child out of wedlock."

This is either the type of story and attention we accept, or we work hard to change political and public discourse in such a way that a new governor will never have to deny rumors that he had a child out of wedlock.

Again, this will never be eradicated, but if we can get to the point that rumors no longer spawn a feeding frenzy, then I think we'll be making progress. And the first and most obvious step seems easy: let's not validate and legitimize smear tactics and stupid narratives in the lefty blogosphere by participating and "seriously" discussing stories that should be dismantled.

Or......maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it was productive talking about blowjobs and land-deals.

by james c 2008-03-18 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

and i gotta go to bed now (i'm in germany, it's late, i gotta work). but thanks for the discussion.

by james c 2008-03-17 05:38PM | 0 recs
The best news for obama in this

depending on the success of tomorrow's speech, is that this if 5-weeks out from any election.  Perhaps the best possible time in the whole primary season.  Anytime in January or Feb. would have been terrible news, as well as April or May... Voters have short memories, because the news cycle gets tired quickly.

by CardBoard 2008-03-17 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: The best news for obama in this

Voters do have short memories, except for things that are truly memorable...that it what is worrisome about Rev. Wright. He makes a powerful impression...he must have made a powerfully good impression on Obama many years ago, but he also makes a powerful negative impression on Americans who are not black and do not share his ideology/vision.

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-17 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I remember graphs like that showed that 3AM ad turned off voters -- but it didn't.

People live in complex media environments. This is not the only thing they will hear and see.  

There's a huge amount of systematic, rigorous communications research that demonstrates that a single message cannot dominate over an extended period of time. It can have a sharp impact but its influence tends to fade.  

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:45PM | 0 recs
Ugh

I saw this poll, and was struck by how utterly irrelevant it was. Still, not surprised Jerome wrote a post about it.

Of course people are less, rather than more, likely to vote for Obama as a result of a horrendous hate speech which supports Obama.

But people will not decide whom to vote for based on Jeremiah Wright's speech.

by Jon 2008-03-17 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Ugh

Really. It's not like there aren't other things going on.

The US economy is sliding down rapidly.
We are in a terrible, stupid war.
People can't afford to buy gas and food prices are rising like crazy.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Ugh

No, but they may decide whom to vote against. What I'm talking about here is Obama's negatives, and my bet is they start to go up.

by Iphie 2008-03-17 06:00PM | 0 recs
A personal perspective of what Wright has done...

to me:

I have my issues with our country.  I am bitterly angry at Bush Co - and sometimes I really want to say I hate "him/them".  But the truth of the matter is hate is such an ugly emotion, one that I (thankfully) have only felt in my life a couple of times.

I am ashamed that we don't have universal health care.  Or that our country scores so poorly against other nations relative to educational standards for our kids.  I am appalled at the greed which permeates our government.  I am stunned that we went to war in Iraq.  I want to reach out and help everyone who is suffering in this mortgage climate (I even feel badly for the idiots that got greedy themselves and over extended to "flip" houses for great gain...well, I don't feel THAT badly for them!). And I fear for my (grown) childrens' futures if things don't improve.

But I also know that my approach to solving these problems would not be to say God Damn America.  I would prefer to bring smart people together in a rational, thoughtful environment and hash things out.  Discuss.  Debate.  Agree.  Disagree.  And work together on a plan to move forward.  I wouldn't expect things to change overnight.  And I wouldn't expect everything to change at once (it might take tiny steps...but at least those steps would be positive).  

That's why I am so dismayed at Rev Wright's stunningly angry sermons.  They say such horrible things about me (I'm white).  They suggest things that, in my entire lifetime, I have never felt toward anyone.  And I was sad that these things are being rountinely said...behind my back (kind of like discovering your friends "talking" about you behind your back - it shocks you and it makes you depressed.  "How could I have been so stupid to think so-and-so liked me??").

In fact, prior to this primary season, I thought things were getting better between the races.  In my lifetime I have seen AA's take on new important responsibilities and achieve great success.  I have seen interracial marriages (yup...when I was born, that was a no-no) and not have the neighbors or family go nuts.  I have gained a whole world of new friendships and knowledge.  And I felt that we were better people for it.

I fear most that this primary will have ripped off the scab from a wound that (I thought) was healing (or at least improving) for this nation.  It will have set us back 50 years.  And we will have added a new national nightmare of coming face to face with a sexist wound that was festering under the surface.

I don't have any suggestions on how to "get back" to where we were.  I just know that things are going to be ugly for some time to come.

by Shazone 2008-03-17 04:46PM | 0 recs
Do you get out much?

It wasn't an attack on white people. It was an attack white people that don't help their communities(i.e. republicans). Are you that naive to think that racism doesn't exist in America and that blacks are angry at some whites for this? I wore an Obama shirt to my bar in philly filled with union workers, friends of mine. They called me n@##$r lover. Should I video tape that and throw it up on youtube for you? Will it shock you that these things are being said behind your back?

by Erik 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
If course I know discrimination exists...

I a women, you fool.

by Shazone 2008-03-17 04:56PM | 0 recs
I never mentioned discrimination...

anywhere in my post. I mentioned racism. Way to move the goal posts though.

by Erik 2008-03-17 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I never mentioned discrimination...

She wasn't moving the goal posts. You mentioned racism which is discrimination based on race. She mentioned descrimination based on gender. They are different sides of the same coin,let's not play semantic games. And while you may wish to dismiss sexism, it is very, very relevant to the discussion.

by Iphie 2008-03-17 06:06PM | 0 recs
Read her original post...

I responded to that. And she ignored everything she and I said and moved the goal posts. Bringing up the fact that she was a women in a discussion of her feelings about being white and offended at Wrights comments is playing semantics. In broader discussion of discrimination racism and sexism can exist in a discussion. She ran out of ideas and spoke outside the of her original topic of discussion. She moved the goal posts.

by Erik 2008-03-17 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you get out much?

What I saw (and yes I am VERY AWARE of racism) is that all white people were blamed in Rev Wrights speech, not SOME white people. Sen Clinton, a DEMOCRAT and a WOMAN, was lumped in with "rich white men."

I'm sorry, but racism is racism, whatever direction.

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you get out much?

Only angry white people and Hillary supporters are upset. Me I don't care what he said. Rich people getting richer at everyone else's expense is a problem in this country. You and everyone else seem to blaming Obama for saying this.

I'm an agnostic who believes in atheism. I would love an airing of what goes on behind closed doors in churches including the American Taliban. Is that the slippery slope that religious people want?

by Erik 2008-03-17 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A personal perspective of what Wright has done

An analysis of a power structure is not a statement about individuals, at least that's the theory taught in sociology 101.

So decrying a system where white people dominates does not mean decrying each and every white person.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: A personal perspective of what Wright has done

Such an elitist comment. I doubt that the non-college graduates out there in whitebread America are going to see it that way. Sometimes you pseudo-intellectuals forget that most people don't live in that bubble with you.

by SusanCLE 2008-03-17 05:30PM | 0 recs
Not only that

Sociology is a notoriously leftist discipline.  It is hard for someone who doesn't adhere to the party line to get a academic job.  These definitions were created by leftists and those with invested interests to conform to their world views.  They are about as "intellectually"  honest as a drunken fan yelling "bum" to a hockey player on the visiting team.

by lombard 2008-03-17 07:11PM | 0 recs
Sometimes I forget I'm in a Democratic primary

No one can argue that academia is perfect or beyond reproach (and frankly, few do).

But let's be clear.  Anti-intellectualism is not okay.  Sociology does have a tendency towards leftism, because it looks at the dynamics of society and sees sees how they inherently favor certain groups over other groups.  It is hard, for instance, not to look at how the vast majority of Americans in prison right now are black (while black people make up I think around 20% of the population), and not see that something is wrong.  And seeing that something is wrong is what makes it a leftist discipline.  (that being an very basic example of sociological methodology.)

But beyond that, what are you doing going around dismissing academia for being leftist in a democratic primary.  Theoretically, we are all leftists of a sort.  And academia is one of the key bases of our support.  Academic institutions are one of the few institutions out there who can develop criticisms of the free market, of government, and of power, with the coherence to match the claims put forth by right wing institutions.  But I'll go further.

Jeremiah Wright, when he made those sermons, was not speaking to Americans outside his congregation.  But what he said represented a form of truth within that community.  Obama is desperately trying not to be the black candidate, and we'll see how well he succeeds, but that doesn't mean that racism isn't alive and present in the lives of many if not all of the black community.  Many in that community do not feel particularly represented by the US government.  Now, what Wright said was radical, yes, and incendiary.  But he was speaking in the tradition of someone who was equally radical and incendiary: Jesus Christ.

I think that it is valid for Democrats to wish that Wright hadn't made those statements, and to worry that the GOP will try to use this against Obama in the general (if he wins the primary).  But I don't see how a Democrat can still be a Democrat if they follow FOX News' lead on this one.  Racism still exists in America, and people are right to be angry about it.  This anger may not be expressed elegantly, and in Wright's case it may miss the mark (with the HIV comment - Ironically, HIV aide may be the one good legacy of the Bush administration).

But how dare we criticize the place from which that anger comes.  

by FishinginCrisis 2008-03-17 08:46PM | 0 recs
I'll tell you why I criticize this hostility

Because white racism has been stigmatized for many years. (And please spare me the sociological definitions of racism that exclude individual behaviors of minorities from consideration!).  It is socially unacceptable in most quarters.  White people have gone to great lengths not to perpetuate racial hostility in their institutions and to teach tolerance to their children.

But now we see how many Democrats think it is A OK for an African American presidential front runner to belong to a church (and raise his children in it) where the minister spews blame and resentment for whites.

If you want to send the message that you will just keep rationalizing and turning the other cheek when confronted with hatred of you, be my guest.  But, you can count me out.  And I don't think the majority of voters outside of our party find this a comforting message.  Most people don't buy into the idea that you stop hatred by enabling haters.  

by lombard 2008-03-17 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll tell you why I criticize this hostility

You're right, this could become a big image problem for Obama.  But. the way I see it, this is a problem for anyone who becomes a black candidate.  In fact, this story is exactly why Ferraro's comments were so completely wrong.

One of Obama's fellow congregationers was asked about Wright's sermons, and said, "I wouldn't call this radical.  I call this being black in America."  A result of this primary process is that the media is shining a light on what goes on in a lot of black churches and this is what it looks like.  We can be disturbed by the rhetoric, but we must understand that what Wright is saying is that there is still real racial injustice in this country.  This is a hard narrative to push, because we like to tell ourselves that we solved this issue with the civil rights movement.  Wright's rhetoric is over-the-top, but he is not preaching hate, he is preaching anger, and he is urging his congregation to not give up the fight.  This is, in fact, a sort of rhetoric that we could find in many black churches across the United States, and I would be willing to bet that any black candidate for the Presidency could be tied to them somehow.  Obama has a tricky speech ahead of him, as would any candidate who is black.

But that isn't the real issue for me here.  My problem is that as someone who lives in Virginia, I can see that racism still is a real problem.  And by categorically denouncing Wright as someone who "spews blame and resentment for whites," we are ignoring something his congregation feels to be true.  And they aren't simply soaking up his extremist beliefs.  If anything, he is (as most good preachers do) speaking to the beliefs of the community.  And in my eyes, we as Democrats also have a tricky  time ahead of us.  If Obama wins the nomination, the GOP will try to use this against him.  The problem is, they won't be attacking Obama with this, they will be attacking the black community.  And we cannot allow that, just as we cannot allow a GOP attack on Clinton to happen in the form of an attack on women.

by FishinginCrisis 2008-03-17 10:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

And with your hard work, Jerome, we'll HELP those Republicans frame the general election around race.  KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

/end snark

by goodnbad 2008-03-17 04:46PM | 0 recs
What I do find interesting is the following

this place is the last lonely place for the 12 or so democrats who still support Hillary on the blogosphere to hang out and spit venom and vitriol against the Democratic candidate for president, and still they are outnumbered by the progressive pro-Barack bloggers.

that is what is interesting to me.

by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What I do find interesting is the following

Ajax, you're funny!

by Iphie 2008-03-17 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

That's right, the republicans really needed help. They were ignoring this issue until now.

You can't be that naive (no snark).

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Gee and with the Obama freepers hard work, the Republicans have all kinds of ammunition against Clinton.

Please, the Repubs are master at this game - Jerome has only commented on what is already self evident.  They are much more imaginative and creative in their deceit and the sad part, they won't have to be too deceitful to get this message hammered into the soul of the American voter.

by anya109 2008-03-17 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

You should have shown the reaction to his response as well. That was overwhelmingly positive. But thanks for posting the link, it's a start.

by marcotom 2008-03-17 04:47PM | 0 recs
This is hilarious

The MSM have already been moving on. It's like page C14 News now.

But Hillary people will still keep digging no matter what. It reminds me of the "our votes are being stolen by the machines" people.

by Walt Starr 2008-03-17 04:48PM | 0 recs
please include

a vdare link to prove that.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-17 05:45PM | 0 recs
Matthews, Tucker Carlson and co.

were spending a lot of time on it. That's the only "show" I caught any of tonight. But, I have been googling news for articles just to see-at least 2000 discrete articles come up-yeah, this doesn't have any traction-people will just quickly forget about the candidate who's spent 20 years sitting in a pew in Rev God Dam America's church-that just rolls off the back of the average American voter.

by berkshiretrueblue 2008-03-17 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This is hilarious

"Barack Obama has lost 17 points in net favorability, and he's in freefall."

Actually, you're hilarious. I smell toast burning.

by JFK464 2008-03-17 07:51PM | 0 recs
Amen Amen and thrice amen!

exactly jerome.

Burying your heads in the sand will not help.  (nudge nudge markos)

By the sounds of Obama's statements today, it sounded like tomorrow he is planning to announce that he is not shunning Wright. This will be a fatal mistake.

by zane 2008-03-17 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Amen Amen and thrice amen!

I tend to disagree. He has and continues to distance himself from Wright. But in my humble opinion, people might lose respect for Obama should he throw Wright under the bus.

FYI Obama's news hour interview http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-ob amas-interview-on-newshour/

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Amen Amen and thrice amen!

I like his approach as seen in that interview, that Wright's anger comes from the challenges he faces and Obama can understand why someone who grew up in that era would be angry, but - and this is important - he doesn't share the anger.

As long as he could make clear that Wright's opinions are not his, this will be largely defused.   Yeah, there still will be some people who won't vote for him, but they were looking for a reason anyway.

I just hope that Obama goes into tomorrow's speech with the idea that it could be a defining moment in America's history and takes it that seriously.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Amen Amen and thrice amen!

Hell no. If he repudiates him now, he not only looks disingenous for kicking away someone he called his spiritual mentor, he also looks spineless.

No, he HAS to defend his works. Distance himself from the rhetoric and if at all possible, neutralize it with some stuff that people might identify with more. Or put it into a better context. But he has to tell people why he would go to a church for 20 years with a pastor like Wright. There IS a reason, it ISN'T that Obama hates America, and he needs to be honest about it.

by vcalzone 2008-03-17 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I actually liked Obama's background better. Maybe because I am african american but I didn't find the statements all that shocking. We live in different worlds. I come from a world where those kinds of conspiracy theories are a part of life. They come out of the frustration of white Americas indifference to the issues of black America. We are what Edwards was talking abot when he discussed the Two Americacs.  That Obama is able to integrate this while still keeping a level headed is to respected. I do think this is interesting as to how it offers a peak into the psychology of this supporters more so than this will have any lasting impact. the fact is Obama was going to be the "black man" or Willie Hortoned no matter what he did. Anyone not realizing this is fooling themselves. When i see all this outrage about the issue being brought up, I can only conclude that they really did think some out race wasn't  going to be used by the right to Southern Strategy him. To that I say, you shold hve know that going in.;

by bruh21 2008-03-17 04:50PM | 0 recs
Very interesting point

about the conspiracy theories in the AA community.  In the white community, conspiracy theories abound as well and they are just as emotionally driven.

Yes, Obama was destined to be "Willie Hortoned," no doubt about it.  This is the reality of our political life in the US.    Any politician who runs for office should expect it, regardless of their race.

by Radiowalla 2008-03-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I sooo have to respond to this statement by you.  And I have left this site for a while because of the extremism in supporters of various candidates.

I am Latino male married to a white male in Boston.  Both my spouse and I actually liked Obama more AFTER these revelations.  My spouse is a Hillary person, whilst I am an Obamaman.  But he actually said he is more inclined to support Barack now because we both understand that there are two Americas and the majority of whites really give less than a shit about the plight of blacks, gays, and latinos.  There, I said it!

I am a person who works in a mainstream professional setting.  And many people would be shocked at some of my personal beliefs.  HIV being a gov't created disease being among them.

My point is exactly what you have made:  being able to see and hear sermons of issues that are de rigeur in the AA community and being able to compartmentalize them and move on to serious issues makes me think of Obama as MORE of a mature, responsible man who is able to lead America and not be swayed by zealots on many fronts.

by jgarcia 2008-03-17 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

That's how I view it too. That he really is able to listen not just to people coming from the far right, but also from the much further left. People talked about unity, and yet ironiocally when he shows it in a demonstrable way, they bark at it because its not from the right.

by bruh21 2008-03-17 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Exactly.  If this guy can hear views of AA nationalists in the mold of Malcolm X and also hear ra ra ra Americana stories about his white grandfather fighting in a segregated Army in WWII and being a hero, then isn't that the very embodiment of "bridging the racial divide"?

by jgarcia 2008-03-17 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

The more the speech is shown, the better.  As an example, when the Rodney King police officers were on trial, the defense attorneys played the video over and over again because it blunted its impact.  I fully hope that's what happens here over the next few weeks.

by mefck 2008-03-17 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

To clarify, the more Wright's sermons are shown.

by mefck 2008-03-17 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Innocolation. agreed its good this is happening now rather than in the fall.

by bruh21 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Yeah, because showing it in the fall won't damage Sen Clinton in the GE....

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

USA Today/Gallup poll out tomorrow shows Clinton up on McCain +5 and Obama by +2. This is at odds with most polling up until now, is this worsening national performance due to this?

I have worried for a while now about Obama. I think the idea that he could do a lot better in the red states was media hype.

We know what we're getting with Clinton, a fighter who's ready to win. We are not going to get these nasty surprises.

I don't hold his pastor's remarks against Obama, but i think its right to say this is 'toxic'.

I always supported Hillary, but i've never been this worried about an Obama nomination.

by liberalj 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

We know what we're getting with Clinton, a fighter who's ready to win. We are not going to get these nasty surprises.

Don't speak to soon.  We have yet to see who donated to Bill's presidential library - or any other "skeletons" in the Clinton tax returns.

by goodnbad 2008-03-17 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

It might not be fair, but i don't think voters will care that much about that stuff. We know what to expect from the Clintons, and you can never rule out nasty surprises but i dont think we'll see anything this toxic.

I just hope Obama/Clinton have got some good stuff on McCain.

by liberalj 2008-03-17 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

See, I think that that's what a lot of people want to believe, but I'm not sure it's true, particularly if we're going to rely on drawing new voters into the process (who may never have voted or even been of age during the Clinton Administration).  Maybe we'll find out.

One important thing to note, though - freaking out about a daily tracking poll this far out is a sure way to get an ulcer.

by rfahey22 2008-03-17 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Haha. Thanks for the health advice.

Just really don't want to lose this one. Before i supported Hillary, but was happy to see Obama hammer McCain. Now Obama just looks politically naive for so closely associating himself with this guy, he must of known the kind of stuff he's been saying over the years. And if he did, putting him on your spiritual advisory committee is plain dumb.

by liberalj 2008-03-17 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Agreed.  Either is clearly superior to McCain.  Hopefully we can keep the third-party defections low and win some independents this time around.

by rfahey22 2008-03-17 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

McCain's got a great back story but he offers no solutions to the country's problems. Basically he's saying 'hey guys, you know how we've just had the most disastorous set of foreign and economc policies maybe in the history of the nation? well, i was kinda thinking... maybe you'd like some more of the same'.

Some day even the Republicans are going to realise tax cuts for the rich, distatorous foreign wars and out of control government borrowing is a f*** dumb way to run the country.

by liberalj 2008-03-17 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Jerome,
How does he separate himself from Wright? No one believes that he didn't know what was going on church and he continues to go there and is still a member to this day. Their relationship is so entertwined for so many years, speeches, books etc. I just don't see how he gets past it. I imagine that he would have to continually trash the man from here until election day.

And I do agree that Obama's fence straddling really hasn't done one thing. And it looks like that's the strategy that he's going to continue.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
His 26-year old speechwriter

is going to work a miracle. I don't think so. Everyone knows Obama can deliver a speech. And by now,  nobody is going to be sucked in by a great sounding line until it is researched to make sure it wasn't lifted from somebody else's  work.

by ineedalife 2008-03-17 05:30PM | 0 recs
you forgot to add the

meme of he should drop out.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-17 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Well I'll say this about the Wright story:   I haven't seen anybody using "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" in quite a while.  No more madrassa stories either.

Praise the Lord for that!

by goodnbad 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
Wright and Farrakhan, and Qaddafi visits

are real though.  I mean, how do you get around that reality?

by chieflytrue 2008-03-17 10:22PM | 0 recs
OK, someone hold him down...

and I will give him a dry shave.

by mboehm 2008-03-17 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

For me, many of Wright's comments are legitimate.  I do feel that US foreign policy has led to the deaths of millions of innocent people.  Being Patriotic is about making our country better.  An important question I ask myself is, while I might object to his tone or language, do I have substantial disagreement with his message?  For me, the answer is no.  Unfortunately, the way the msm engages with these issues and, unfortunately, the way Mr. Armstrong does in this post, lowers the level of debate and obscures what we, as a community, should really be discussing.

Focusing on the issues can also be a grassroots movement.

by cwsaterfield 2008-03-17 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Focusing on the issues is fine, but Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. The people who decide are the voters of the United States, and most of them are flag-waving patriotic and not African American...the question is not whether some of the issues raised by Wright are legitimate, but what voters will think of a candidate who calls Wright his pastor.

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-17 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

So why not wait more than two days before coming to the unproven conclusion that his candidacy is doomed?  It's clear that certain people here want his candidacy to be doomed, but that's hardly been established.  Sheesh.

by rfahey22 2008-03-17 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I hear what you are saying Alice, but am not so bent on subsuming everything within the lens of the political.  I think we focus to much on how things will play politically and too little on what they actually mean.  I would also site the msn's reaction to Obama's speech.  The question posed was "how will the people react?" The question should have been "what did he say? Do we agree with his message? Where can we take this dialogue from here?"  

Blogs are an increasingly important element of the msn.  We get to create how we think the discourse should go.  I, for one, want to aim high.

By the way, I think all of the above applies to the treatment of HRC and JM as well.

by cwsaterfield 2008-03-19 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This is a train wreck for the general election. I mean, Kerry won a purple heart and they dragged him through the slime.

There is no coming back from this.

by cc 2008-03-17 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Just like Bill Clinton could not win in 1992 because of Gennifer Flowers, the draft letter, "I did not inhale," bimbo eruptions, etc.???

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

"God damn America" "America gave blacks AIDS" etc., and the tone of that rhetoric is a far cry from "I didn't inhale", my friend. I suspect you are under thirty years of age.

But, you know, fine. If you think this isn't a problem for him then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Me? I think he is radioactive at this point.

by cc 2008-03-17 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I forget.  Which of those quotes came from Obama?  Which of those quotes has he expressed agreement with?

by thezzyzx 2008-03-17 05:21PM | 0 recs
Ross Perot

Can Obama pull a Perot out of his hat? Nader? I don't think so. It was hard for Bush to pound on one candidate's weaknesses when he was defending himself on two fronts.

by ineedalife 2008-03-17 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Relax, chicken little.  Eight months is a veritable eternity for a presidential election.  From Obama's standpoint, now is the absolute OPTIMAL time for this to come out.

by goodnbad 2008-03-17 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

By your logic we would have to nominate the Pope to have any shot at victory.  It's all about fighting back when someone gets slimed.

by rfahey22 2008-03-17 05:15PM | 0 recs
I do not know if nominating the

current pope would help

He is an ex-Hitler youth (though at that time everyone was forced to be in it). Media would have a field day.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-17 05:48PM | 0 recs
there, there chicken little

we were told you could not beat clinton too.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-17 05:56PM | 0 recs
Shunning would be the mistake

The time to do that was years ago.  He can't do that now.  What he needs to do is explain what it was about Wright that drew him to him, to show that Wright is more than just anger and he did have an appeal to people.  Then he can (and I hope will) talk about how Obama was about to leave the church before Wright decided to retire and how he helped pick a less angry replacement (both true).

The speech needs to explain Wright's appeal in addition to talking about how much he disagrees with his later statements.  It won't be easy, but if anyone can do it, it's Obama.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-17 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Shunning would be the mistake

And how does this sound?

MS. IFILL: You have also cast this as a generational distinction of the sort of things that Reverend Wright said being the baggage of a fiercely intelligent African-American man of his generation and Geraldine Ferraro's as well. When does one person's baggage become another person's memory/history?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, look, there's a continuum. But I think that, you know, when you look at somebody like a Reverend Wright who grew up in the '50s or '60s, his experience of race in this country is very different than mine in the same way that Geraldine's experience being an intelligent, ambitious woman, you know, is very different than a young woman who's coming up today and potentially has a different set of opportunities.

Now, we benefit from that past. We benefit from the difficult battles that were taken place. But I'm not sure that we benefit from continuing to perpetuate the anger and the bitterness that I think, at this point, serves to divide rather than bring us together. And that's part of what this campaign has been about, is to say, let's acknowledge a difficult history, but let's move forward in a practical way to get things done.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: PBS Interview

Did you notice when he laughed about Hillary Clinton having chutzpah?

He leaned in towards Gwen Ifill as if to to establish some personal/physical level of approval. The camera switched to Ifill and she was glaring at him.  Perhaps Ifill is a Clinton supporter.  Perhaps Ifill did not appreciate Obama's efforts to sway her in her professional role as journalist.

But the hard look was unmistakable.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Shunning would be the mistake

How does that sound?

It sounds like the next President of the United States.  That's the kind of talk that won people over to him.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-17 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Shunning would be the mistake

Where did you find the info about Obama's intent to leave the church and his participation in picking a new minister?  If there is some kind of evidence in this, then it might go a ways toward helping the situation.  If it is something that just came up now, and is new information after the fact, people will just look at it as an attempt to create a story palatable to the country.

by Scotch 2008-03-17 05:16PM | 0 recs
Those are great questions.

Let me see if I can google them quickly.  I've been reading a LOT this weekend...

I can't find anything yet which may mean that I misremembered something.  I'm going to try a few different searches.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-17 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Shunning would be the mistake

Ok, I'm not insane.  One was how I interpreted a statement from his Huff Post post:


The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church."

That at least says to me that he was considering leaving the church, but I could also see not buying that...

I'll see if I can find a quote for the other thing.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-17 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Shunning would be the mistake

Yeah. If he had talked it over, his dislike of the Reverend's style before the campaign, with someone who could confirm it, it might help.  But addressing it now and just saying he disapproved, probably isn't believable.  Mostly, just because in 20 years, this can't be the first time Wright has said things like this, and people will think surely if he didn't hear these particular comments, he must have heard some like them at some time or other.

Thanks for looking it up.

by Scotch 2008-03-17 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Interesting that this site is posting Fox News fodder.  

by hdaman 2008-03-17 04:59PM | 0 recs
very interesting - newsmax, fox news, Mark Penn

i remember when the bigoted pieces of garbage on the far right were rediculed on this site, not linked to with pride.  ahh, those were the days.

the only positive to this is that MYDD is now a repository for the few remaining pro-McCain VP supporters, and there appear to be fewer than 30 or so.

the vast majority of hits on this site are from people like you and me who got bored of Redstate and come here to see what the unhinged are talking about.

by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-17 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: very interesting - newsmax, fox news, Mark Pen

Yes those were the days where MSM was more balanced, NBC/MSNBC was not the Obama propaganda network, and we didn't get a constant Hillary evil/Obama good narrative.

Some of us are horrified that we find Fox news to have a more "balanced" coverage of the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES than the other networks. But hey, it says a lot about the state of media.

Of course Obama supporters don't see this.

by Marvin42 2008-03-17 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: very interesting - newsmax, fox news, Mark Pen

Oh, it's the guy who troll-rated me dispensing his invective to everybody now.

If you hate this website so much, why don't you just do us all a favor and vamoose.
Notice, amigo, that I didn't troll-rate you despite the fact that your comment is filled with unbridled nastiness.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Shame this won't ultimately make a difference to his chances in the end. /me wipes away tear of pity for JA.

by pitahole 2008-03-17 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I kinda figured that Jerome would be keeping this story alive today.  Jerome kept posting hit pieces on the Obama 'plagiarism' non-story long after 99% of the population had stopped caring about it.

::Yawn::

by chinapaulo 2008-03-17 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I thought 99% never cared about the "plagiarism" story (I thought it was thoroughly idiotic).

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-17 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I never claimed anyone cared about it, go back and read the posts. I found it an interesting take on his handlers.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-17 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

But, have Obama's "speeches" been the same?  He is boring now, so, even though you think the charge didn't stick, it sure did change how he did his stump speeches (this as well as the cult meme).

by anya109 2008-03-17 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: But Jerome -

You miss one of the most profound pieces of information from this survey - admittedly one survey with a relatively small size.

While all three political groupings viewed the sermons of Rev. Wright negatively, African Americans viewed the sermons in a range from neutral to positive.  That is serious news.

What it says is that the racial divide from Jim Crow to the Birmingham fire hoses to the lynching of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas remains firmly in place.  If anything, the statements of a new colorblind nation are a lie.  If Rev. Wright's message resonates with African Americans, yet infuriates white Americans - then they must inhabit two entirely different worlds.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: But Jerome -

Yea, I see that too. I don't think it's black and white. The line for AA's is not that high mostly, but it is there.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: But Jerome -

There are a lot of things my friends, mostly black professionals, will say to me that they would never say to you or a pollster. I believe that there is still a deep well of differnce between what is said in public and what is understood. For one thing, we aren't blind to how this society still treats us. I recount this over at open left- Harvard Medical or some journal like this- wrote up how black s were under prescribed pain medication because doctors generally underdiagnosed the black patients level of pain. This stuff goes deep, and its not always going to show up as easily as with a poll.

by bruh21 2008-03-17 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: But Jerome -

You could make that argument about prejudice more generally. The difference is that white men, women, rich, educated class, etc. do not have the same group consciousness or group mobilization whereby we  interact with other members of our ingroup and say disparaging things about the outgroups. I mean, unless you count book clubs and sports bars, but things are usually about the book or the game. So while there are a variety of different groups who have reasonable grievances against society, I can't identify such polarizing language and leadership outside the AA and CC communities.

by hctb 2008-03-17 11:35PM | 0 recs
It's not news

to anyone who has been paying attention.

by Alice in Florida 2008-03-17 05:29PM | 0 recs
McCain's candidate for VP thanks you all

well done.  all 40 people who agree with the sentiment of Jerome have done their utmost to take a non-issue and turn it into McCain's talking point for August (or whenever it is that he invites Hillary to join him on the ticket).

Universal, you alegre and susanhu should be proud of all that you have done to continue the 100 year war in Iraq and the decade-long decline of the American economy.

well done!

by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-17 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's candidate for VP thanks you all

Quit blaming others for Obama's mistakes. Did those people force him to align himself with Wright. You should be mad at Obama for doing this not the people who are pointing it out.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
quick - what's Hillary's pastor's background?

just curious

by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: quick

Well, for one she's a mainstream Methodist. I've seen the pastor of the church she went to in DC on TV. Very mainstream in his theology. Nothing radical or racist about the statements he made.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-17 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: quick

Good point, but instead she just left those types of comments to be made by people actually affiliated with the campaign, such as Ferraro.  

by LionelEHutz 2008-03-17 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's candidate for VP thanks you all

Yeah! Susanhu, alegre, Universal and the rest of us should stop criticizing the government in a time of war.  It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. We must be French.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-17 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's candidate for VP thanks you all

Criticizing the government is fine. Asking God to damn America while America's young are dying overseas in beyond odious -- this is loony land and speaks volumes about Obama and his bad judment in picking friends.

by JFK464 2008-03-17 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's candidate for VP thanks you all

So we're just supposed to nominate this guy without discussing his negatives?  Why is it okay to discuss Hillary's "likeability issue," her Iraq vote, and the baggage from Bill, but we can't talk about this?  We have to put this out there and discuss it.  

Don't blame the Clinton supporters for this.  Blame all the establishment Democrats--John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Bill Bradley--who jumped on the hopemobile before fulling vetting the candidate.

by psychodrew 2008-03-17 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: REALITY CHECK
Jerome bashers your off base.  This story WILL NOT go away thanks to the 527 shrills that will pound this Wright persona into white-suburban and rural homes across the nation from now until 11-4-08! This is similar to the Dukakis moment in that tank along with his defense against the death penalty.  
Finally Obama supporters please bloggers save your time and your internet fees if your going to CONSISTENTLY badger Jerome about his Obama topics. You loose objectivity when you post rants against Jerome that don't deal with the facts.  The REALITY is this crap is 200 X WORSE than the Swiftys vs Kerry.  This will not play in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri(outside of St. Louis), Colorado, or any othe swing-state.  This entire thing will sink his campaign eventually.  Once again UNFORTUNATELY John Edwards isn't here to pick up the pieces and win the election going away which I think he would due to his persona.      The worst thing about this tire issue is that it didn't break earlier (last fall) now were screwed.    
by nzubechukwu 2008-03-17 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: REALITY CHECK

Oh no! We're DOOMED!

LOL. What a bunch of over-reacters.

by Oregonian 2008-03-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: REALITY CHECK

"John Edwards isn't here" - I agree. If the MSM would have vetted Obama sooner, got this out sooner,  Edwards would probably still be in the race. We would either have Edwards or Clinton, we would have a nominee right now, and campaigning against McCain who is overseas looking presidential. This isn't going away. Obama cannot explain away a 20 year relationship with Wright. Obama really does need to step aside now.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-17 05:14PM | 0 recs
Actually, isn't it the contrary?

Proof that he can bride the racial divide.

I mean, if a person like Wright can support him and millions of white voters can support him, isn't that what it's all about?

It's not about continuing the labels and creating more divisions, but healing those divisions.

by jaywillie 2008-03-17 05:05PM | 0 recs
by annefrank 2008-03-17 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: GayWired Article
Brutal - simply brutal.
But spot on, too.
Some of the best writing I have seen.
by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:58PM | 0 recs
Wow! nt

by Radiowalla 2008-03-17 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Obama is stuck between the white and black cultures.  If he tries to distance himself from Wright, he is also distancing himself from black culture, and from those supporters who are his strongest.  At the same time, if he doesn't distance himself from Wright, he looses white supporters in droves.  If Obama didn't anticipate this type of problem coming up in his campaign then he is totally naive, and maybe not ready to work for and address the multiple elements of the country at large as president.  

Wrights views and beliefs are shared by many, many black people, and is a result of the scars left early in the countrys history by slavery,and the long years of an inferior position in society, and their way of handling it.  There is still anger against this country to this day, and that anger is a bonding mechanism within black society and within the black culture.  This is what I have learned from talking frankly about race and politics with black friends over the years.  White America is just waking up to the fact that there is an underlying emotional current among black people in this country.  Neither view or side can claim the superiority or correctness of their views.  Both views come from personal experience.  It just leads to a deep divide that Obama is not going to solve and make disappear with one or even a dozen speeches.

by Scotch 2008-03-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

IMO Obama oughtn't "distance" himself from Wright (which he can't really, not after 20 years or so) -- the opposite, he ought say that he won't abandon a man he loves as a father (or whatever analogy he prefers), even if many of the things that Wright says completely appall him.

Many of us have fathers/grandfathers/uncles with horrible and outdated ideas that disgust us, we still don't abandon them. That's a message that will get through, I believe.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-17 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph is also in your hands

I suppose this is the next version of the Swiftboat.

You know, it's absolutely guilt by association.  Obama has gone on every program, and answered this, in a sensible, convincing way.

this post is basically saying "there is no way that Obama can convince America to ignore this guilt by association".

If you play that way, you've already given up!

I keep wondering - is there some stronger skeletion in the closet, that made Jerome give up on every single tenet that he wrote about with Markos in CTG???

Otherwise, WHY in the WORLD would you go back on the wisdom that you personally AUTHORED??

Quite strange.

by jc 2008-03-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I Keep Wondering, Too

Was there something in the California water that made Markos give up on every tenet of CTG?

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph is also in your hands

Um... lets be intellectually honest here jc.  If a Republican had been a member of a church for 20 years that spewed any kind of racism, and that Republican considered the pastor his spiritual mentor, you wouldn't, at a minimum accuse him of bad judgment? (btw... judgment is a key quality that Obama is running on).

I don't think he believes any of this crap his pastor is spewing, but it's a question of judgment, or pandering to the Black community by being associated to a church he doesn't really believe in.

by KensUSA 2008-03-17 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Floor Nomination

Marian Wright Edelman

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:08PM | 0 recs
MYDD Quotes Bill O Now?
This is getting pretty sad. I wold expect a little less sleaze from MYDD, but this is a site with a bias towards Hillary, so I guess nothing is beneath you people.
Get it in your heads; FAUX Noise, the Republicans, and the McCain campaign all want Hillary to win the nomination, because they know she is unelectable.
Promote Wright all you want, but the only people who care about the retired, out of service, and now disassociated Reverend Wright, are those who won't vote for any Democrat under any circumstances. The people that matter aren't going to say "I won't vote for Obama just because Wright was his minister."
Parrot Bill O (a true racist) as much as you want, but it only makes you guys and Hillary look desperate.
by fetboy 2008-03-17 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: MYDD Quotes Bill O Now?

It's just desperation.  They want something to cling to.  Hilary is losing even worse now than she was when she desperately needed Ohio and Texas by large margins.  

It's same desperation that caused them to call a loss in Texas and a not nearly big enough win in Ohio the return of the comeback Clintons.

They reject reality and replace it with comfortable delusions in order to justify Hilary's continued betrayal of the party because her ego/ambition is more important to her than the advancement of the progressive agenda.

Hang on.  It'll be over BEFORE the convention.  Just wait it out like the flu.  Barack's got it sewn up.  

Fortunately Mr. Wright is not running for office and since, unlike Hilary in the wake of Geraldine, Barack had the integrity to denounce the message immediately; it'll be more difficult to hang someone else's words  around the neck of a man who publicly rejected those words already.

Dream on Hilary folks.  You guys ready to buy your own compound yet?  Maybe perfect a foil hat design?

by lockewasright 2008-03-17 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Wright turned up at a crucial time in Obama's life.  He was a bi-racial orphan raised by white grandparents and looking for his identity.  In Dreams of My Father, the conversion in Wright's church is the turning point in his identity crisis.  The black pride that Wright preaches was exactly what Obama needed at that moment in time.  That is why he took tapes of Wright with him when he went to law school.  I think Obama has known all along that there are militant undertones to Wright's embrace of Cone's Black Liberation Theology (He went to Libya with Farrakhan in 1984) but was willing to overlook that because of the good that was there and the hole that black pride filled for him.  Most of my black friends are not biracial orphans, so they had no need for for a conversion to proud blackness as it were.  

by Mike Pridmore 2008-03-17 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Um. . . .Obama was the privileged son and grandson of wealthy, college educated white Americans and a landowning, aristocratic African father. He did not have an "identity crises" (what pablum!, are you really that naive?), he adopted a psuedo-African American identity because he saw that it, combined with his high powered educational credentials, would help
him to satisfy his enormous political ambitions. Obama established his phony "street cred" as an "organizer" of a "community" that he did not grow up in, did not share in the hardships of, and knew nothing about, in between stints at elite, Ivy League Universities paid for by his rich white family.

Obama consciously chose to become an "Afican American" and to live on the South Side of Chicago because he believed the path to high office was easiest under those circumstances. Obama supporters are like little children, they believe that the "good guy" in the story acts wholly out of altruism and never calculates his own personal advantage. But this is absurd. Obama grew up showered with privilege. A wealthy American child in poverty-stricken Indonesia. A suburban Hawaiian teenager at an exclusive, private high school. Two elite, private universities, one of them Ivy League. And then Harvard Law School. Upon graduating, Obama could have lived anywhere, in any city, in any neighborhood, but he chose the South Side of Chicago. Why? Because of his "identity crises?" If you believe that I have a bridge that spans the East River that you might like to buy. No, obviously, because on the South Side, a "black man" who was the EIC of the HLR would have an easier path to high office than he would on the North Shore, or the Upper East Side, or Beacon Hill, or Beverly Hills or any of the ritzy places that Obama's credentials would have given him entree to live in.

Rev. Wright's church helped fill out the picture. If anyone questioned how a carpetbagger from Hawaii with a white mother and an aristocratic father actually could be a real representative of real African Americans living in poverty on the South Side, the church that Obama joined conveniently provided the answer. Look, Obama could say, I could have joined a high-toned, mainstream church, but, instead, I am a member of an "Afro-centric" church with Farrakhan type tendencies.

Now that Obama is running for national office, Rev. Wright's church is no longer so useful, so Obama feigns ignorance ("Gee, I wasn't there when Wright preached all that nasty stuff, I had no idea,  and, of course, I don't agree with any of it. . . ."), and, true to form, his childlike worshippers believe his literally incredible line of bullshit. Who cares when Obama was in the pews or not in the pews? How could he not know what Wright was all about? Wasn't Michelle there? How about his friends in the congregation? Does a preacher from Chicago go to Libya with Farrakhan and the members of the congregation, including a man who is called a "genius" by supporters, not know about it? How about the DVDs?

Obama is not about "black pride." He talks constantly about a post racial present and future. The chuch he belongs to IS about black pride. And Obama used that to his advantage. Now that it is no longer to his advantage, he wants to jettison it, just like he jettisoned his white identity after it was no longer useful to him after Harvard.

Obama is a complete phony and fraud. These are just some of the things that he--or his supporters--claim he is that he is not: "son of an immigrant"--totally false, his father was an international student who did not, and never intended to, settle in the US; "son of a goatherder"--totally false, his father was the son of a wealthy, landowning aristocrat, who was sent to the US to go to elite schools (including Harvard)--no actual, black African "goatherders" were attending Harvard in the early 1960's; an "African American"--Obama is half white American, and half African, he is no part "African American," none of his ancestors were African Americans, none of his ancestors suffered under slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, or any of the other hardships that real African Americans have as part of their heritage--in addition, Obama was not raised culturally in an African American family, neighborhood, school, or milleau. "African American" is a pseudo-identity chosen by Obama to further his political career, whatever he says in his self-valorizing auto-hagiography to the contrary notwithstanding; Obama is not, and never was, a "constitutional law professor" or "scholar," he never wrote a scholarly or academic article of any kind, his stint as EIC of the HLR notwithstanding, from what I can gather, he didn't do much actual "editing" there either, nor was he a "professor" at the U of C law school--he was an untenured lecturer who made no orginal contribution to the literature, and had no degree beyond a JD; Obama is not the harbinger of some "new kind" of politics--he played classic hardball Chicago hardball to get all of his opponents (including his mentor) thrown off the ballot in his first state senate run, once in office, Obama immediately starting running for Congress--defeated, he sucked up to the majority leader in the state senate who fluffed up his record so that he could run for US Senate, at the same time, Obama showed more concern for the slumlord scumbag who financed his campaigns than for the people of his district who he had supposedly "organized" in the past; Obama was not a "civil rights" attorney--yes, he handled a few high profile civil rights case, but his bread and butter, what paid for his mansion (to the extent that Rezko didn't pay for it directly) was his work as a real estate lawyer qualifying pigs like Rezko for Federal funding for their "low income" housing; Obama is not running a "grass roots" "from the bottom up" campaign--Obama got Kerry's donor list, bundled a ton of contributions from Oprah, Wall Street, Maytag, big Pharma, and big Oil,  and DC lawyers, and started his campaign just like any candidate does--there was no "movement" calling for him to run, no marches in the streets and no mass meetings, on the South Side, anywhere in Chicago, or anywhere else, demanding he run for president--Obama hired his high-priced consultants and staff and he, and they, make all of the important decisions--certainly, he is happy to have naive, easily-duped college students and others volunteer to work for him for free, make a lot of noise at his vacuous rallies, shill for him at debates, and pack caucases for him, but these folks have no say in anything more important than deciding whether to use the blue or red banner or which hero-worshipping slogan to chant; Obama is not an opponent of the Iraq war--he gave one speech against it while he was a state senator running for re-election in the most liberal district in Illinois, but he took the speech off his website when it became inconvenient, hedged about the issue over and over again, has done nothing as a US senator to end the war, and has no coherent plan (as evidenced by the comments of his top foreign policy advisor) to do so as president. Nor is Obama a "progressive"--he thinks social security is "in crises" and his top economic advisors are privatizers, he thinks labor unions are "special interests," he thinks a woman's reproductive freedom should depend on what her "clergy" man has to say (and is generally a misogynist), he wants to "reform" the tort system to the likings of the corporate pigs, he admires Ronald Reagan, and he wants to "reach out" to Republicans and make them Secretaries of State and Defense in his cabinet.

I could go on, but what's the point? Obama's worshippers are not open to any critique about their Messiah, as the reaction to Jerome's post on his own website shows. They are the followers of a cult of personality; they are totalitarians who cannot countenance any criticism of their false god anywhere.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-17 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I've never seen such a bunch of whiners before about a post. Don't these idiots realize that we are all just political junkies here that are not even close in any way to the real world of undecided voters? We can discuss things without worrying about stupid claims of "continuing the story".

It makes me want to install a ban on displaying true ignorance.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-17 05:13PM | 0 recs
Look at TalkLeft

and how they moderate their blog.  This place sorely needs it.  You are too kind to those who disparage you on a daily basis.

by diplomatic 2008-03-17 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Look at TalkLeft

yep, just what we need - censorship for those who don't agree

and jerome - so professional of you to refer to those with a dissenting view as "whiners"

I could call hillary people "whiners" for:

  1. the media is SO unfair to hillary
  2. Now the Blogs are so unfair - we're going on STRIKE

not everyone is going to agree with your posts - if that were the case, then why post it?  the point is to generate discussion

but I guess the only discussion some people want is constant praise about their brilliant points of view

by stevepdx5 2008-03-17 06:50PM | 0 recs
censorship by mob is the alternative

and can be found at Daily Kos.

by diplomatic 2008-03-18 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph
Fetboy and jc if you don't like objectivity then just go over to daily kooks were you can enjoy your "fairytale" fantasy...
OUCH....
"The Chickens.... Are coming home... (pause) TO ROOST!!!"  LMAO
by nzubechukwu 2008-03-17 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

uh... scoreboard.

You're losing.  Try and follow along with the rest of the class.

by lockewasright 2008-03-17 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

The fundamental problem for Obama is that he is running for President of the United States, not president of college faculty.

Having been so closely associated with a guy who can accurately be described as an America-hater is BAD politics. The man cannot possibly claim to never have known of the pastor's deeply anti-American beliefs after having been in his church for 20 years. It's simply not believable.

It might not affect the Dem primary, but with the overall electorate, the last thing you wanna do is be associated with someone who believes in damning America and using black panther rhetoric when your campaign is supposed to be about racial reconciliation.

This is a radioactive time bomb that will make the Swift Boaters look like an amateurish attack ad. People do not react well to politicians who are in any way associated to others or who themselves trash America. Period.

I don't know what he can do to fight this off, but the millions he's spending on consultants better pay off in some way.

by need some wood 2008-03-17 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

His negatives are approaching Hilary's.  Hers are still worse.  Those of you who think this just does him in, but don't think Hilary's negatives sink her are flat out being dishonest with yourselves.  Obama wins the nomination (I won't go into the math. All that cyphering stuff is witchcraft around here.) and then he goes on to win the presidency because the GOP's name is already mud and the recession hasn't even gotten nasty yet.  

This will be old news before we even get to Pennsylvania.  Predictions of doom from folks who've supported the rest of the reality impaired perceptions of the Hilary voters just don't scare me.  

I think it's more desperate wishful thinking out of the Hilary folks than it is anything else.

(These predictions were brought to you by the same folks who thought is was obvious that the Florida primary was fair and should count.  You see how well that's worked out.)

by lockewasright 2008-03-17 05:25PM | 0 recs
Attention Spans

The media will get bored with this just as it gets bored with everything else.  The clips are harsh at first, but repetition dulls the senses.  Kerry had a problem with the swift boat ads because he did not respond, they occurred much later in the campaign, and Bush got a lead and captured the narrative as the presumed victor, not to mention having the benefit of the anti-gay referenda in Ohio etc.  Here, it's March, with nearly six weeks before Pennsylvania, and 8 months before the general election.  If this was September I'd be really worried, but never underestimate the ability of the American people to move on to the next story, and the desire of the media to turn the page and find the next new headline.  Just wait until McCain has his turn with the meatgrinder.  He may be liked more than most, but no one is immune for too long from the need for new fodder for the entertainment machine that currently services electoral politics in the U.S.  Gold help us all.

by dge 2008-03-17 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Purple Line

This graph tells me two things.

Obama cannot win.
Even if the Dems ran Mickey Mouse and the Goppers ran Donald Duck, each would get the core 40%.  So it is the middle 20% that makes the difference.  About half of these people are politically informed.  If Obama gives a great speech he may be able to reach a majority of this group - certainly not all.  But the other 10% can't find Iraq on a world map or tell you the difference between Bear Stearns and a polar bear.  Those are the people who will vote based upon the Rev. Wright video.

But the other shoe is the purple line.
If Obama does not receive the Democratic nomination, it appears that roughly half the African American population may choose to sit out the election or vote for Green Party presumptive nominee Cybthia McKinney who says many of the same things that Wright does.

That leaves the Democratic Party in a pretty bad fix.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Purple Line

Even if you were to take this at face value, eight months away from the election (never a good idea), the questions themselves were relative, not absolute.  "More likely" and "less likely" do not equal "will" or "will not."

by rfahey22 2008-03-17 05:53PM | 0 recs
Reality check

What this episode tells me is that the media, pundits and some of the commentators here are divorced from reality.

Obama still leads McCains in the polls, even with this nonsense out there.

This election will be decided on the economy, the war and healthcare, not nonsense like this.

by JD Lasica 2008-03-17 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I think my favorite quote is ..."The partisan knives among the Republicans are out and won't go away."

Really, Jerome? Gonna Blame the republicans?  They why is this on the front page and why were there so many diaries about Wright over the weekend?

To pretend that republicans are the only ones pushing this and then display "crapola" from Faux News and Bill O is pretty hypocritical, don't you think?

Clinton supporters know she will not catch Obama in delegates and likely not in the popular vote.... Clinton's  only hope is to somehow make Obama unelectable so that the public will be okay with the superdelegates reversing the voters and "saving us from ourselves."

Jerome and mydd are only too happy to do the the work of the RNC in helping take Obama down.  Its kind of appalling.... democrats acting like republicans and then somehow justifying it

I would bet my left arm that a few years ago, most people on this site loved Obama and were glad he was a part of the democratic party... now look at you guys - hoping that this Wright issue takes him down just because he dared to challenge (and so far, beating) your preferred candidate

Acting like republicans should NEVER be acceptable

by stevepdx5 2008-03-17 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Acting Like Republicans?

So if Clinton supporters are acting like Republicans -
Who are Obama supporters acting like?

  1. Clinton should concede.
  2. Florida and Michigan don't count.
  3. End the nomination process now and declare a winner.

Sounds to me like banana republic dictators.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-17 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Acting Like Republicans?

Thats right, acting like republicans

give me a scenario in which clinton takes the lead in delegates or votes?

Can't count Michigan without a revote. Obama wasn't even on the ballot.  You cn't be serious that we should just count a state that will given Clinton delegates and Obama ZERO delegates

As for Florida, they really need a revote.  I feel sorry for people who came out to vote, but candidates weren't allowed to campaign there... that will always favor the cadidate who is more nationally recognized, which Clinton was at the time

she CANNOT catch up, be honest.  Most Obama supporters would be fine with her staying in the race if she kept it civil

But her only option is to bash Obama and hope that people view him as unelectable

Her supporters  have taken on the persona of the Clinton Campaign - that it is okay to do anything to win....you guys want to see her win no matter what... no matter if Obama,  good democrat and a good person, is destroyed in the process.....THAT is acting like a republican, whether you want to  admit it or not

by stevepdx5 2008-03-17 05:46PM | 0 recs
I've got a scenario for you...

Obama is forced to step down.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-03-17 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I've got a scenario for you...

thanks, youve just proven my point

you need to hope that a  "scandal" like this plays out in order for your candidate to get the nomination

and yet you still don't care... so long as you win

thats the mindset of a republican

by stevepdx5 2008-03-17 06:16PM | 0 recs
What?

no, ah, that's the mindset of a party that wins elections.  That's the whole point of the Super Delegates.  To choose the candidate that can best win.  They wouldn't exist if this sort of a judgement didn't need to be made and it was only about who had the most delegates going into the convention.

It's not about "hoping" this scandal sticks, it's about fearing it will.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-03-17 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Acting Like Republicans?

Bingo, Bango, Bongo.

Nice post Steve.  I concur with you assessment.

by fogiv 2008-03-17 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph
If Mr.Obama is going to be our next President then it seems to me he needs to act like one.  He needs to end this situation and move on to the matters at hand.  I personally do not care about the political views of his pastor.  He has the right to express himself.  We do not have to agree with him.
This country is in crisis...it is not teetering as I believe was one of the terms Mr. Obama used.
Hiliary sumed it up best we are in the soup...big time  
by peoplesvoice 2008-03-17 05:37PM | 0 recs
This whole episode could explain

how Obama could sit by while his surrogates painted the Clinton's as racists. It wasn't all pure cold political calculation. If he listened to this every Sunday for 20 years he probably believes it. Every statement by a white person goes through the racism translator. That is why his inner circle could casually call Hillary a monster.

by ineedalife 2008-03-17 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: This whole episode could explain

"That is why his inner circle could casually call Hillary a monster."

Yeah. That's why Samantha Power, white and Irish born and raised, could casually call Hillary a monster. Because she's got a racism translator. Nice call.

We're too stupid to win a national election.

by Baseballhead 2008-03-17 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: This whole episode could explain

I've heard that Power called Clinton a monster because of the Clinton Administration's failure to intervene in Rwanda (which truly is a black mark on that administration).  Also, Power is white and female, so the statement couldn't have been either racist or sexist.  But hey, whatever serves your talking points, I guess.

by rfahey22 2008-03-17 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: This whole episode could explain

After Sheheen, Kerry, Cuomo, "Jesse won there too", "as far as I know" and Ferraro you still claim that Obama is the one that played the race card. Do you know any black people? If you do read to them what all the following previous people said in which you claim Obama played the race card.. see what they tell you. And you guys ever wonder how Obama went from mostly supporting Hillary to voting as a block for Obama.

by TMP 2008-03-17 06:01PM | 0 recs
So I followed the links and found . . .

1) Upon hearing the excerpts and seeing the graphs I discovered that before anything at all incendiary or "offensive" was said, the graphs of the black folks went to positive and the rest dove down. The primary thing this shows is that whites have a negative reaction to old, black, loud preachers.

2) I looked under the hood at the further data the study gathered and found that the pre-test and psot-test of support for Obama was within 1%. That means that "make you less likely to support" did not translate into change of support.

3) Also looking under the hood, the tested group was a strange one: 52/36 favored Clinton/Obama in the sample before viewing the video.

4) Interesting idea for experiment: show identical video to two similar groups, one with "offensive" ideas and the other just with innocuous ideas, but both with Rev. Wright's speaking style.

Tentative conclusion: white America is racist.

by demondeac 2008-03-17 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: So I followed the links and found . . .

Assuming the data are correct, this is a very thoughtful post.  God forbid that we actually try to live in a reality based community.  Bravo to you.

by dge 2008-03-17 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: So I followed the links and found . . .

The conclusion, though, goes too far.  The point of your post is the sample is skewed, which means the data can't support your last sentence.

by dge 2008-03-17 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: So I followed the links and found . . .

true. The data are insufficient to support much of anything. More study needed.

I know that's a disappointing result to most (not meaning you) but the "reality based" community is boring compared to the fan clubs.

by demondeac 2008-03-17 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

" That is why his inner circle could casually call Hillary a monster."

Yeah. That's why Samantha Power, white and Irish born and raised, could casually call Hillary a monster. Because she's got a racism translator. Nice call.

We're too stupid to win a national elections.

by Baseballhead 2008-03-17 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

We're democrats.  We found the easiest election in 200 years to win and god bless us if we didn't find a way to try and lose it.

by kasjogren 2008-03-17 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This will NOT blow over. We are going to hear it again and again and again if Obama is the nominee. That had better be some speech, or he's sunk.

by owl06 2008-03-17 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

He's sunk already.  This was his iceberg, it is over.  He can only safe face and retreat.

by anya109 2008-03-17 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Psst...I heard that Obama might possibly be acquainted with a number of people who may think there's a chance that OJ was set up.

Unelectable!

by Cole Moore Odell 2008-03-17 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I agree with both Owl and Cole that this will not blow over and this, among other things, makes Obama unelectable. The super delegates must not even consider nominating Obama because it will be political suicide to do so. Not only would he lose to McCain, any Dem up for election, if perceived to be allied with Obama, will be hurt in November.

There is nothing Obama can say on Tuesday that can salve this wound. Oprah also belonged to that TUCC but she left it years ago because of Rev. Wright's flaming rhetoric. That Obama stayed goes to judgement and character. Oprah seems to have those qualities while Obama doesn't.

Obama is TOAST!

by Nobama 2008-03-17 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Um, you know, I was kidding.

Of course Obama has a real problem here, but for all of those here who profess to be so horribly shocked by Wright's angry views, where the hell have you been for the past 40 years? Is this really the first time you've heard any of this? It would have been more shocking if, as a black man in America, Obama didn't know anyone who thinks these things.

This may well be a fatal blow to Obama's candidacy. We'll all find out. But really, many of you, from Jerome on down, are seeing what you want to see in this, trying to will it into the disaster that you hope will salvage Hilary's chances. And honestly, Obama's self-destruction is your best opportunity, because it would allow Hilary's campaign to keep its hands relatively clean moving forward, perhaps avoiding the various nuclear options they've been floating.

by Cole Moore Odell 2008-03-17 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

bs, I've hardly said I know how it will turn out.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-17 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Where did I say you did?

What I did say is that it's painfully obvious what you'd like to see happen here, that your pre-existing opinions tend to take the Wright matter as confirmation of every qualm (to put it mildly) you and many other Clinton supporters have had about Obama: that he's a bullshit artist, that he's not ready, fit or qualified to be President, that he's got politically damaging skeletons, that the right wing noise machine will tear him apart, etc.

I really don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

by Cole Moore Odell 2008-03-17 06:39PM | 0 recs
They just don't get it

I read through about half the comments and can't go on.  Obama people...you just don't get it.  You don't see it, you don't want to see it even when the graphic evidence is staring you in the face.

In 40+ years of following presidential elections I've only seen one scandal bigger than this one  -- forget girlfriends, shady associates, funy finances -- you have to go all the way back to Eagleton's visits to a shrink to find anything as bombastic in the moment as this for a running candidate.    (reminder: Eagleton had to drop off the ticket)  The only single bigger political scandal in modern history involving a serious presidential hopeful with as much and more sticking power?  Mary Jo Kopekne, God rest her soul.

the general electorate is NOT going to forget this -- for one, the GOP would never allow them to forget it, for another it's the type of incediary knowledge that doesn't go away.  All the wishing in the world is not making this story go away.  It's not going to get easier to watch Wright seem to celebrate 9/11, they'll be no getting used to the idea of the US of KKK, very few are ever going to come to terms with the US invented the AIDS virus.  

Wright is not just a supporter or even a close friend -- Obama has repeatedly claimed him as his spiritual advisor for HIS ENTIRE ADULT LIFE. He wrote a book dedicated to him.  Either they share some of these beliefs or Obama picked his "spiritual advisor" rather capriciously.  

It is not only racial divisive -- it is lunatic level unAmerican IN TIME OF WAR.  Forget MyDD and even the GOP for a moment and imagine the fun fest anti-American websites and leaders around the world can have with these tapes if Obama is elected.  NO, seriously, think about that -- those tapes, playing on Iranian TV.  Imagine the impact these tapes have on members of the armed forces, on veterans,  on the families of anyone who's died or been maimed in service of God Damned America.  

I can certainly see why you don't want this to be happening, why you don't want any of this to mean anything, why you want to blame the people like Jerome you think you can control.  But no one can control this.  I can even well understand that the concept of genuine patriotism is foreign to you.  But it isn't to the vast majority of Americans.  There simply is no bigger "sin" imaginable for a presidential candidate than carrying the stain of being anti-American unless it's murder.

Nothing else out there on any of them, real or imagined, nothing that has ever been thrown at a major candidate compares to this.  It's akin to being found a member of the Communist Party in 1960.  

IT can't be explained, it can't be diffused, it can't be forgotten.

It won't be forgotten.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-03-17 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: They just don't get it

Yes, you go to the heart of the problem.  Regardless of how WE think about Wright (and I don't disagree with every point on this video, not by a long shot), this video is almost certain to destroy Obama.  I just hope it doesn't destroy the Democrats' chances in fall at the same time.

You can't be perceived as anti-American and expect to be elected president.  You can't call the US the KKK and expect people to vote for you.  You can't blame 9/11 deaths on America and expecte votes.

The very slender hope Obama now has is due to the fact that he himself didn't say those things.  I agree, though, that his 20-year relationship with Wright, and his praise of Wright, make it pretty nearly as bad.

by Montague 2008-03-17 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: They just don't get it

I urge you to read what demondeac wrote...

") Upon hearing the excerpts and seeing the graphs I discovered that before anything at all incendiary or "offensive" was said, the graphs of the black folks went to positive and the rest dove down. The primary thing this shows is that whites have a negative reaction to old, black, loud preachers.

2) I looked under the hood at the further data the study gathered and found that the pre-test and psot-test of support for Obama was within 1%. That means that "make you less likely to support" did not translate into change of support.

3) Also looking under the hood, the tested group was a strange one: 52/36 favored Clinton/Obama in the sample before viewing the video."

Interesting that the tested group was pro-clinton

One thing is true - Clinton supporters are HOPING that this issue never goes away

You might be right, you might be wrong.  Only time will tell

But it is sad that you seem to be hoping that this issue doesn't die and takes Obama down

And If the supers give the nod to clinton, you can bet that the GOP and 527's will be running ad after ad about
1.Monica
2.Travelgate
3.Vince Foster
4.White Water
5.Normal Hsu
etc

Hillary herself has never run a national campaign having to face the old garbage from clinton past... clinton supporters are hoping that the public won't care anymore... but there is no guarantee that she is immune or  that months of reminders about clinton scandals won't take hillary down

you need to be careful what you wish for

by stevepdx5 2008-03-17 06:11PM | 0 recs
I am more troubled by the family membership

than any spiritual association he has with Wright.  Obama has chosen to raise his children in a racist black church.  How's that for a man who claims to be a uniter?

by lombard 2008-03-17 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: They just don't get it

No, you just don't get it. If we throw Obama out over Wright, we throw away the African American vote. This is mainstream stuff

http://www.theroot.com/id/45302

African Americans make up 20-25% of our vote. The Republicans win because they kowtow to their vocal minority. We might learn a lot by doing the same sometimes. And by the way our vocal minority has a lot more honest grievances than the Republicans do.

by benb 2008-03-17 08:38PM | 0 recs
Where did J.A. Get The Idea for This Story

Jerome:

Did the Clinton campaign push this story to you?

by riverred 2008-03-17 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Where did J.A. Get The Idea for This Story

Yeah like they inserted mindprobes into ABC news and forced them to buy Wright's America-hating DVDs. Hillary is a physic puppet master.

by owl06 2008-03-17 06:04PM | 0 recs
Unlike Jerome, I like Obama less now

Why?  Because he should have known this would be the reaction once the Wright stuff came out, but being arrogant, figured that he alone of all people could get away with it.  And now we are (almost) stuck with him, and will lose in November.  Thanks, buddy.

The point isn't even whether Wright makes good points or not.  Some of his points I agree with.  While I can handle someone saying "God damn America" I know that no presidential candidate in the U.S. can have a 20-year relationship with a pastor who says it and expect not to pay an extremely heavy price for it.

I'm not positive yet that Obama is toast, but I think this thing sealed it.  Thanks for the hubris, Barack.  And thanks to those who kept claiming he was fully vetted.  This is what vetting means - finding not only the true things that a candidate did wrong, but more important finding the things that, although the candidate may be complete innocent, will make excellent fodder for the wingnuts.  I can't think of anything that will do that better than "God damn America."

by Montague 2008-03-17 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Unlike Jerome, I like Obama less now

Why did he associate with him over the years if Wright said inflammatory remarks regularly? The congregation seemed to be on the same page, and Obama is part of it.

by owl06 2008-03-17 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Unlike Jerome, I like Obama less now

Yep.  That's how it will be perceived.  Frankly, I'm not even convinced that Obama doesn't share some of those sentiments.  If he didn't, what's he been doing there?  The man baptized his kids, performed his marriage ceremony, gave him the title of his book and essentially his campaign.

by Montague 2008-03-17 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Unlike Jerome, I like Obama less now

I feel that same way, and I am certain many more do. It's reasonable to assume that.

by owl06 2008-03-17 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Clearly this thing is just killing his chances:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/latestpolls/index.html

As you can see the polling shows that... what?!... wait... what?

Oh yeah, he's beating Hilary head to head and McCain head to head.

Nevermind.

by lockewasright 2008-03-17 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Not so much. Those are averages and as such include poll results from before the Wright debacle. The real story is in the Gallup results from today. Clinton up around 8 points since last week, and now doing 3 points better than McCain. Obama doing what sound an awful lot like a hail mary speech tomorrow. You decide ... to me it sounds like game over.

by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-17 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This won't even be in the news by the end of next week.  Reverend Wright is not Obama.  It'll pass.  Obama will still beat the McCain surrogate in Oregon, N.C. and Indiana.  She will still lose the nomination.  Maybe she can run as McCain's VP.

by lockewasright 2008-03-17 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

What deludes Obama people into thinking Indiana is a lock?  That is dumb. We had to drum the earth just last week for a special--that may have some election fatigues for Indianapolis voters. Plus, we like a good race to bring out the crazy.

Counting on IN is hubris, particularly given the NC polls that are narrowing. NC is a perfect state for Obama--if things are within 10 in NC Obama start to look like a drowning guppy. He may still win the election, but the numbers out of NC are not promising.

by hctb 2008-03-17 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

If Indiana gives you some consolation in losing the primary season then you can have it.

If Obama win in N.C. by 1 delegate it's a win just like in any other state.

by lockewasright 2008-03-18 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Look again, the top section is one day, today.  How is it that you Hilary folks can misperceive reality EVERY TIME?

by lockewasright 2008-03-17 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph
The thing is, we've seen this before. NAFTAgate was going to resonate with the voters forever -- look, he lied! Then Rezko -- look, he's corrupt! The voters will never forgive _this_. Or Power -- see, his staff says dumb things. And besides, he lied about Iraq! It's all over! Or Little Tuesday -- look, he lost Ohio, Texas, _and_ Rhode Island! He's doomed! Now we're hearing that he's permanently tarred as an anti-American anti-white wingnut wacko. The sky is falling! And the thing is, we can look at the polls too. And we watch them, and we see that they maybe jiggle a little here and there, and what do you know, they go right back where they were? And we look at Wright, and how real actual human beings that aren't in the blogosphere, around us, people like that are reacting to it? And you know what? They've seen the video -- who hasn't? And the response is... wow, that guy's a bit of a nut, ain't he? Good thing it didn't rub off on Obama, and sure glad he denounced all that stuff! And we look at the media a bit more, and they're already looking towards cranking up the next story. So by this point it's gotten very tedious to be told, again, this it is, it's over. Because the people telling us have turned into the Boy That Cried Wolf. And we're not seeing the Wolf, look though we may. Now, it's possible that Obama will fumble his speech tomorrow. If he does, the Wolf is loose and we're all toast over here on the Obama side of things. It's possible that he'll hit a real high note. If he does, it'll kick things into overdrive; a really strong speech tomorrow, with everyone watching, and he's President. He'll be essentially swiftboat-proof on anything to do with race and religion, if he nails the speech tomorrow. And it's possible that he'll give a middling, adequate speech. If he does... well, it won't cost him the Democratic nomination. He'd have to fumble it to do that. It'll make the GE a pretty hard-fought contest, though. He runs better on a lot of issues than does McCain, but he'll be battered by the swiftboaters. In the meantime, it's gotten tedious beyond description to see Obama's obituary written over, and over, and over, when he's clearly not out of it, or as yet even hit all that hard.
by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-17 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Don't forget the plagiarism charge.  That one fueled a ton of faux-outrage and a slew of fantasy predictions, as well.  I'm really surprised Obama pulled off Wisconsin faced with all of the certain conclusions drawn here.

by Wes 2008-03-17 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I'm confused.  Why are we still discussing this non-issue?  Well, I guess we have to talk about it a few more days since Obama has been forced into giving a speech about it.

by RussTC3 2008-03-17 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I think the party is being taken over by the "America hater" kossack, move on types.  These people and Obama himself are out of touch with the American public and the majority of the democratic party.  I"m so tired of the hate towards the government and the obsession with such things as Plamegate and FISA.  We are Americans first and democrats second.  I had such disdain for Bush on how he used patriotism and a political tool but the far left is doing the same thing.  I am a democrat and I put my hand on my heart during the national anthem and I choke up at God Bless America. How dare Barack and the far left be so dismissive of us.

by MidwestTracker 2008-03-17 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Is this snark? I can't tell anymore.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-17 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

I say good riddance to them all. We're better off without them. I don't want Chicago corruption reaching Washington DC and already it's perilously close. I also abhor this 'entitlement' arrogance - from someone already so enfranchised in comparison to the people they are duping. Obama is a blight, a corporate sellout, and the sooner he is history the sooner the country can get back on track.

by RMC 2008-03-17 06:45PM | 0 recs
The Obamans are not with reality

They keep saying this doesn't matter, he'll give another speech etc.  I know better than this.  This is a big deal, and I think will sink Obama in a general election.  This is a BIG deal.  White American voters in the middle are freaked out and scared by the Wright video.  I'm scared by it myself.  

I wouldn't want to be driving by the church on a Sunday after one of the sermons about "rich white people".  It looks like anger being vented against whites, and I think that's what it was.

Everyone needs to face reality.  This is a BIG deal and will be a BIG deal in the GE if Obama makes it.  

Let's see how Obama does in getting the white vote in PA.  If Hillary does over 70%, then Obama has a real problem.

by blustateguy68 2008-03-17 06:51PM | 0 recs
The Government Created AIDS?

The U.S. government created AIDS to kill people of color and lied about it?  And the congregation roars and cheers?

I am sorry, that is first rate nut job conspiracy nonsense.

Obama says this guy is a renowned scholar and influential minister.

If that is the case Obama needs to specifically refute each and every  crazy paranoid conspiracy theory Wright has unleashed on the black community.  I think that would better than to renounce Wright.

Obama's current renouncement of everything "controversial" is too cute by half.  He needs to be specific about what he is renouncing.

by dMarx 2008-03-17 07:23PM | 0 recs
the banality of despair here

let's see if we get some audacious hope elsewhere tomorrow

by brit 2008-03-17 07:28PM | 0 recs
I keep forgetting that amongst whites and liberals

I keep forgetting that amongst whites and white liberals, that women and non-white men and women have to "behave" and that their associations are under way way more scrutiny than say, a guy like McCain, with his ties to radical anti Catholic clerics, and who has courted the extreme right white evangelicals who've had a field day under Bush II.

Sorry about that. You white liberals just keep tut tutting and reinforcing a meme for your pals at McCain HQ. Hey, I hear Democrats for McCain pays well, and let's face it, if "our" candidate can't win, let's just f*ck it up for everyone else and get another Republican liar, because, after all, we can keep Congress!

Funny. NOT!

by Schadelmann 2008-03-17 07:29PM | 0 recs
Hillary-ville

I still don't really understand this issue at all.  

Are there people on the Democratic side of the fence who actually believe that Obama is a pawn on Pastor Wright's anti-American chessboard?  Have any of you folks ever listened to Thom Hartmann or Mike Malloy on the radio?  Have any of you guys ever read a Noam Chomsky book?  Have any of you guys ever been to an anti-war rally in which somebody screamed that America was messed up?  Have you ever picked up the Nation or Mother Jones.  If not, seriously, get out more.  

We have real issues in this country.  We need to listen to a lot of people.  Some of those people will be pissed about America and some of those people will be adoring.  Some of those people will call it Amerikkka and some will support anti-flag burning legislation.  There is no time for this kind of serial idiocy.  

by zadura 2008-03-17 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary-ville
Well spoken.  I just don't get the brutal invective from supposed Democrats.  It seems Hill-fans want to trash this guy to a point he is unelectable in November.  
Unbelievable.  
by stryan 2008-03-17 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

If Obama tried to disassociate himself from someone he has known for 20 yrs he would lose more support than he would gain. This is just poor analysis on Jerome's part. He may be right that the this is toxic enough to end the campaign, but disassociating is not a solution. The only chance he has is to try to bridge the gap in white and african america understanding

http://www.theroot.com/id/45302

This plays into his overall message, so it could work. The idea that we can vote for a black man, but not one that associates with other black men is just silly. It means this country is racist and will remain so. Wright is the pastor for a relatively mainstream congregation. If Obama has to disassociate himself from him, than he will live his identity behind. The fact that Jerome does not get this, is proof positive that he no longer is any good at political analysis.

by benb 2008-03-17 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Yea, he should have done it a long time ago. Now, its not going away as a problem.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-18 02:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Looking at that data, what I want to know is, who the hell are the 7% of Republicans who are more likely to support Obama after seeing the video? I mean, that's just confusing beyond all measure.

The graph is fascinating. I kept expecting the red line to burst through the bottom of the screen.

by sricki 2008-03-17 09:16PM | 0 recs
Republicans who want to win in November

They like Obama more now because he'd be such an easy opponent for McCain, I think.

by diplomatic 2008-03-18 03:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

Do a graph on Hagee, Parsely, Graham making anti-Semitic remarks or Falwell and Robertson ruminating on America's moral turpitude being responsible for 9/11. You'll get similar results.

How many scandals and bimbo eruptions did Bill Clinton have going on in 92? Obama is a choir boy compared to candidate Clinton.

by mcgish 2008-03-17 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

being less scandal prone than Bill Clinton is not a particularly compelling defense. And WJC expended a lot of political capital in order to keep those scandals at bay. I think the good outweighed the bad, but I would not choose to go down that path unless I was certain of the candidates commitment to the policy goals and vision of America I espouse.  

by hctb 2008-03-17 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The racial graph

This is it. This is the test for Obama. The division in America, the division in our Party, amongst progressives. Reverend Wright is a part of America, a part of our Party, a part of our movement. If we can't find a way to include him in our governing majority, then IMHO we won't have one. Either Obama has the superlative political and oratorical talent to pull this off tomorrow, or he doesn't and we wait another generation for a leader who can. Even though I'm amongst his biggest supporters, I don't know if he can do it. Nobody since MLK has.

by dmc2 2008-03-17 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Only Way Out

is for Obama to acknowledge that he has fucked up,
has hung an albatross around our necks, and take the second spot under Hillary.

Hillary cannot be Swift-Boated; she will defenestrate McCain.

by Bob H 2008-03-18 03:03AM | 0 recs
The one that got me was about being passed over

Because of being black, and supposedly Hillary doesn't know what that is like because she is white. He is completely ignoring the fact that women are passed over every day because they are women, and have to be very good to progress forward in careers.

There has been discrimination against women for far longer than there has been against races, across the board in every country for pretty much ever since the human species came forth. They have been, and are being, enslaved, abused, and used.

by splashy 2008-03-18 11:58AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads