MyDD :: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack Obama and for Democrats

POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack Obama and for Democrats

by truthteller2007, Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST

Rasmussen Reports
Survey of 1,200 Likely Voters
14-16 MARCH 2008

Favorability Ratings for Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Very Favorable	2%
Somewhat Favorable	6%
Somewhat Unfavorable	17%
Very Unfavorable	41%
Not Sure	33%

Do Wright's Remarks Make You More or Less Likely to Vote for Barack Obama?

More Likely	11%
Less Likely	56%
No Impact	30%
Not Sure	2%

73% of voters say Wright's comments are racially divisive. This opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters
44% of Democrats claim Wright's comments make them less likely to vote for Obama
42% believe Obama should resign from his church; only 40% believe he should not
52% of voters had a favorable opinion of Obama last Thursday, the day before the media focused its attention in Rev. Wright. Now only 47% have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama.

Consider this an open thread on electability and on Jeremiah Wright's negative impact on the Democratic Party.

Tags: Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, Trinity United Church of Christ, electability (all tags)

Permalink :: 64 Comments :: Post a Comment

I can understand why Obama supporters (2.00 / 6)

would feel this is very unfair. But Obama used religion and race to win the black vote and the guilty white liberal elite vote and now it is bitting him in the ass. He should be honest for once, it is his only chance to fix this. If he continues to throw Wright under the bus and deny knowing what his sermons were about he can kiss his chances goodbye completely.

It is much better for this to happen now than in the GE.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:15:56 PM EST

Re: I can understand why Obama supporters (none / 0)

Its cool, we just lost the November election, but I'm starting to come to terms with it, I mean McCain should be an improvement over Bush.

by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's it? (none / 0)

The weekend of the huge story that will kill him forever and only 56% said "less likely?"

Not much of a deal breaker there. Remember "less likely" doesn't mean that you'll not vote for him, but rather that this story isn't going to be the reason why you'd vote for him. How many supporters of Clinton would answer "more likely" if asked, "Does Clinton's vote in favor of authorizing combat in Iraq make you more or less likely to vote for her?"

Beat McCain!

by thezzyzx on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack O (2.00 / 2)

tips and recommendations, please

by truthteller2007 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:21:50 PM EST

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack O (none / 0)

Here's my tip: It would be best for you to reclibrate your expectations for the eventual nominee.

Here's my recommendation: Take some time off and reflect on just how silly this post is.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack O (2.00 / 0)

56% are less likely to vote for Obama, and this figure includes almost half of our Party.

Now sit down, write these numbers on your little pad and think about the ramifications of the majority of Americans rejecting Obama in a general election.

by truthteller2007 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama doesn't have this nomination in the bag ... (none / 0)

And even though I favor Hillary, I'm not gleeful about this turn of events. I think you might appreciate an article (link below) from The New Republic by Michael Crowley (an Obama supporter). I'll quote you part of it, as he says something that I particularly agree with.

The second issue is how we should feel, normatively, about the fact that Obama maintained ties with Wright, even after presumably realizing that he held views Obama now calls deplorable. I'm not prepared to render judgment on that here. But I do worry that this lays bare a very grim truth: That even middle-class black American culture is more angry and alienated than most whites understand, and that our country is simply not yet at the point where even an ostensibly post-racial black candidate can escape that dynamic entirely. (Indeed not only was Wright perfectly acceptable to Obama and his Chicago circle, but it seems likely that it would have been difficult for Obama to separate himself from the preacher had he wanted to, lest he be accused of not being an "authentic" member of the south side black community.) In other words, what's happening here is far bigger than the particulars of Obama and Wright, it's about cultural dissonance that was going to bubble up one way or another. And as a colleague put it to me today, in terms I hope are too pessimistic: "It makes me think it's going to be at least another generation before we see a black man elected president." If Obama can prove him wrong then he really may be a world-historical figure.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump /archive/2008/03/15/obama-and-wright.asp x

Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings

by Inky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama doesn't have this nominat... (none / 0)

I'd respond with three thoughts...

First - check the wingnutosphere. I take you at your word that you take no glee in this, but compare the "Wright output" at MyDD against the "Wright output" at Redstate, lucianne.com, freerepublic, LGF or any other right wing gutter site. The number of Jeremiah Wright postings at MyDD FAR outwieghs those at all the other sites combined. I did a quick back-o-the-napkin count and there are almost TWICE AS MANY "Wright postings" here as there are at the other usual suspects COMBINED. You may not personally be "taking glee" in this -- but I challenge that a seeming majority (or at least vocal minority) of anti-Obamaites don't seem to share your view.

Second- I find it absolutely reprehensible that so many folks seem to be using about 60 seconds of YouTube video to judge a 30 year career. It's the equivalent of judging the Democratic advocacy of Markos (whatever your view of Primary season) based on the infamous "Screw 'em" comments. It's the equivalent of judging Noam Chomsky... Michael Moore... Howard Dean... any Scion of anything based on snippets. How anyone in this nation feels that they have enough evidence to "judge" Rev. Wright is beyond me. Months ago -- when the first salvos of the "Wright attacks" wormed their way onto this site-- I DID do a little googling of the church... Guess what... turns out they're an awful lot like every Catholic church I've ever attended -- they run a great number of community programs and do a lot of good work, but also occasionally tread into areas of philosophical judgement that I don't necessary accept wholecloth.

Third - like I said below, this has to be the easily the 5th or 6th time that I've been informed about Obama being DOOMED. Time and again, we've seen the same story play out... Obama gets attacked by some sort of tangential smear. He temporarily loses his lead in a daily tracking poll and falls back into a statistical tie... The chicken littles reassess as he responds - and his numbers return to where they were before the manufactured 'scandal du jour'.... all the while -- his lead in delegates remains unaffected.

Does he have the nomination wrapped up? Technically, no... but unlike Mike Huckabee -- I am pretty good at math. It would take a collapse of truly EPIC proportions for him NOT to get the nomination. The choice has become a pretty clear one... I'm NOT advocating Clinton drop out of the race... I'm simply advocating that her online surrogates take a look at where the most damaging anti-Obama salvos come from -- the right wing, or from supposed Democrats and Democratic supporters at places like MyDD.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama doesn't have this nominat... (none / 0)

Have you ever considered that the reason people on MyDD are more concerned about this story than people on the the right-wing websites is that people on this site actually want to see the Democratic candidate win in November, whereas the RW-hate sites want the candidate who's most likely to lose the GE to emerge from the nomination process. Do you honestly thing these sites aren't going to play this story for all it's worth when and if Obama is the official Democratic candidate? Besides which, I just checked out your assertion on redstate.com and it doesn't even hold true--just check out their recommended diaries section.

http://www.redstate.com/

Technically, no... but unlike Mike Huckabee -- I am pretty good at math. It would take a collapse of truly EPIC proportions for him NOT to get the nomination.

You're assuming that the super delegates won't give Hillary the majority she needs. That's not a safe assumption if Obama loses the upcoming primaries and it becomes increasingly clear that he has lost the support of working class white voters.

Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings

by Inky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for (none / 0)

Well since Jeremiah Wright is not running for president, we have nothing to worry about.

by Spanky on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:22:11 PM EST

Hillaryous (none / 0)

Yes, yes... let's have an open thread to discuss the power of Jeremiah Wright over America.

You know what the most foolish part about Wright's 30 second YouTube clip is?

That instead of using the power he supposedly has over America (or at least over the Democratic party) to reverse and undo that which he decries -- he preached about it.

As the most powerful man in America - he should have simply snapped his fingers and solved all our problems.

The Hysteria of Hyperbole is alive and well at MyDD.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack O (2.00 / 1)

VERY good diary. Especially heartening to see most people agreeing that this type of activity is unacceptable.

by Fleaflicker on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST

OMG! (2.00 / 2)

Obama is gonna be obliterated in a General Election. This is Bad! Why didn't the main stream media report about this before now???? The media is so corrupt.

by karajan72 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:24:42 PM EST

Re: OMG! (2.00 / 0)

56% of voters are less likely to vote for him. In other words, a MAJORITY of Americans will reject Barack Obama.

by truthteller2007 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG! (none / 0)

OMFG!!!!

You're right!!!!

Why, he's probably falling further and further behind based on GE early votes as we speak.

Wait.

What do you mean GE early voting hasn't started yet?

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG! (none / 0)

Well, you'll have to forgive the media...

They're kept impossibly busy following up every Clintonite smear against Obama. The problem is that you folks seem to jump from one "OMFG!!! He's FINISHED. DOOMED" scandal to the next.

I believe it started with Obama's IL State Senate records... he was doomed because he voted "present", per a Planned Parenthood strategy, on several IL State Senate measures regarding a woman's right to choose.

This was followed by a "just wait until his total IL State Senate voting record" becomes clearer.

Then - just as folks were learning how to use the ilga.gov site to actually read the Senate transcripts and votes -- the DOOM shifted...

Obama's 'slumlord' was going to be his undoing. Major political donor Tony Rezko was going to DOOM, DOOM! Obama.

Then - it was his failure to win CA, MA, NJ, and NY that would DOOM, DOOM him -- he couldn't win "big states".

While everyone was parsing the nonsense - the trajectory shifted again... It was Obama's over-reliance on those hateful blacks and latte liberals that would DOOM, DOOM! him.

Next - NAFTA-gate... NAFTA-GATE!!! Doomed. DOOMED because he wasn't supporting Dobbsian protectionism.

After that -- it was the MEDIA!!! Take a look at the media!!! They were so, so unfair to Clinton - but eventually they'd start to vet Obama and he'd be DOOMED, DOOMED!!! yet again.

Then - I think we jumped back to Rezko... OMFG!!! Rezko's trial starts the day before Little Tuesday - just wait, he'll be DOOMED, DOOMED!!! yet gain.

Now - we've landed on Wright... He DOOMS, DOOMS!!!! Obama.

It's hard to blame the media for not being able to keep up.

No sane person can keep up with your delusional fantasies.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG! (2.00 / 0)

Ummmmm -
How, exactly, is this a Clintonite scandal?

Hillary Clinton did not attend TUCC for twenty years.
Hillary Clinton did not use any of Rev. Wright's words as a title for her books.
Hillary Clinton did not have the sermons for sale on her website.

Nopers. This one is all of Obama's doings.

by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG! (none / 0)

Where did I refer to a "Clintonite scandal"?

I'm saying that the Clinton Cultists keep pushing a new supposed "Obama scandal" every week.

Perhaps if you all got together and decided on a single scandal as the reason Obama is doomed, DOOMED -- people would take you more seriously (more seriously than you deserve, but more seriously nonetheless).

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG! (none / 0)

Let's go outside and play for a while.

by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:15:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry? (none / 0)

I don't take your meaning.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a (none / 0)

I guess we'll find out for sure in November when we see how an Obama-led ticket fares against the GOP's McCain ticket, won't we?

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:24:59 PM EST

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a (2.00 / 0)

Nope -

Because the superdelegates are sure not going to give the nomination to someone polling at 42% come August.

Whether Clinton gets it or there is a compromise candidate remains to be seen, but Obama will NOT be the nominee.

by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a (none / 0)

Wanna place a bet?

We can say the winning amount goes to charity or a congressional candidate of the winner's choice.

Name the price.

I'll take the bet.

Hell... I'll even give you 2 to 1 odds.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:41:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a (none / 0)

Yeah - -

I'll bet the future of the country on the outcome.

by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Errr... (none / 0)

so is that a yes or a no?

You'll forgive me if I don't think you can cover a bet that encompasses the entire US GDP.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:58:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am happy with this poll (none / 0)

I am happy to see that a plurarity of black people agree that those comments were divisive (despite what Obama's fans have been insisting for the past 2 days).

So, those comments are not part of the "mainstream black culture" after all.

The rest of the poll is almost irrelevant.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST

Re: I am happy with this poll (none / 0)

In three days Obama's favorability decreased 5 points. And this is just the beginning.

by truthteller2007 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am happy with this poll (2.00 / 2)

I am not an Obama fan by any means, but I do not want to see him destroyed over this issue. There are many positive reasons to support Hillary, and many reasons (based on issues alone) to vote against Obama. With respect to Rev. Wright, my big beef is that he did not walk out many years back. But still, I do not want to see him destroyed over this.

I am happy that black people reject such preachers ~ that is the most important observation from the poll, in my mind.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:36:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, apparently Oprah walked years ago (none / 0)

The most disturbing thing about this from my point of view is that he would choose to raise his children in this church with the result that they would grow up being indoctrinated with anti-white propaganda.

by lombard on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

Yes, I could cherry pick the comments of anyone in America and then poll them and PROVE how "divisive" that person is.

Hell, I could do it with Fricken mother Theresa.

When understood in context, I happen to agree with Mr Wright's comments.

HEre they are as I understand them:

1. Freedom of speech is good.

Iraq war is bad.
The current corporate economic system is unfair, corrupt and treats poor people like property.

So, to me, this "scandal" is about either:

A. you disagree with the three things above, in which case I think you should be supporting Mitt Romney in the Republican Party.

B. You agree with the things above, but you think you can use them out of context to help your candidate, HRC.

C. You agree with Wright, but think that he said things in a way that will make another guy, Obama, unelectable. If this is your answer, I think you're being kind of dishonest.

Anyway, Rev. Wright is a real hero and a very brave man. Do I find THE WAY he said things offensive? Yes. But I think it's very sad that some are willing to publicly destroyed this man in order to hurt Barack Obama. Very sad.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

Hell, I could do it with Fricken mother Theresa.

Could you, really ? Why don't you then. It would prove your point.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (2.00 / 1)

Frankly, I think it's a bit unseemly, but Mother Theresa wasn't without controversy....

In the early 80s, after having been honored by the regime of Haitian dictator "Baby Doc" Duvalier, she deliverd an acceptance message that was seen as supportive of the repressive regime.

She was accused of conducting "secret baptisms" of the dying at her hostiles, essentially baptizing as Catholics those to ill to have any say in the matter.

There have also been accusations of finanical mismanagement.

In keeping with church doctrine, Mother Theresa was likewise opposed to methods of birth control and such.

It's not all from Christopher Hitchens book, either -- Mother Theresa had plenty of detractors within India who felt her work there was "Advocacy of Catholocism FIRST; acts of charity SECOND."

Personally - I think the sum total of the life of Mother Theresa was on whole, a lifetime of advocacy and charity for the sick, the poor, and the suffering.... but if you don't think that a sanctioned emissary of the Catholic church has some controversial statements attached to it -- well, you're just being a bit blind to the facts.

I'm a Catholic - so folks like Hitchens, Chatterjee, and others that have attacked Mother Theresa doesn't resonate with me (Hitchens in particular is simply anti-religion).

BUT -

I do know:

1. The Catholic church doctrinally opposing freedom of choice. One simply cannot be a sanctioned Catholic missionary if you believe otherwise.

2. The Catholic church doctrinally opposes birth control. Condoms are a no-no, per church doctrine -- doesn't matter the lives that can be saved by safe sex -- it's categorically rejected by the church. Sex is for procreation ONLY.

3. Only recently - AFTER Mother Theresa's death - has the church officially acknowledged a 'path to heaven' that doesn't run through Catholic baptism.

If you don't think -- taking those 3 facts together with Mother Theresa's doctrinal affiliation -- there aren't statements from Mother Theresa that a progressive and Democrat would find QUITE inflammatory -- well, I'm afraid we don't have much to discuss.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

I was looking for examples where Mother Theresa preached hatred, or enmities towards anyone.

Even if she was conducting secret baptisms, that does not reflect ill on her in any way. Your language "those too ill to have any say in the matter" is really quite shocking. She picked up the dying, the wreteched and the ill from the streets, and your beef is that she conducted secret baptisms on them ? WOW!! I wish we ALL did that.

The accusations of financial mismanagement were tied to the Baby Doc accusation you link to. And they are true! He gave her money, and she thanked him for it (and wrote letters on his behalf too). Was she naive ? Yes.. and she did admit her mistake. And yes, many people were disappointed. But it is hardly the same stuff.

In addition to the Missionaires of Charity that westerners know about, Mother Theresa also ran an orphanage (Nirmal Hriday...Tender Hearts in English). I volunteered there for a while, and I have seen the nuns going around with birth control lectures, distributing condoms etc..., despite the doctrinal position of the Church.

Please refrain from commenting on things you do not know anything about !!

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

Well, I posted this is another thread, but I'll apologize and re-post it in response here.

Though I'm a Catholic, I find these statements a bit controversial... Do you?

http://www.aaplog.org/collition.htm

child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that the mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love....The father of that child, however, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn how to live, but kills even her own child to solve her problem. And by abortion, the father is taught that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into that world. So that father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love one another but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion." (more applause) Mother Teresa continued. "I know that couples have to plan their family, and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In

destroying the power of giving life or loving through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self, and so it destroys the gift of love in him and her. In loving, the husband and wife turn the attention to each other, as happens in natural family planing, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that loving is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily. That is why I never give a child to a family that has used contraception, because if the mother has destroyed the power of loving, how will she love my child?"

Abortion is murder?

If you use contraception, you're unfit to be a parent?

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

I support a woman's right to choose, but for me, abortion IS murder. I realize there is a contradiction in those two parts, but I do not care ~ I am comfortable with those two contradictory ideas in my head.

I have never heard or seen Mother Theresa. But I heard the nuns who worked for her. And their message was:
(a) abortion is murder. give us your unborn baby if you do not want her.
(b) family planning is bad, but abortion is worse ~ so here are a few condoms (and don't tell anyone where they came from).

And no, I do not find those words to be controversial.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

OK -

Walk back with me... Can you see how and why some folks might legitimately disagree - and call those statements 'controversial'?

Hey - I certainly accept that many folks, good folks, honest folks, folks who just have a different view than me or someone else -- might find those statements "spot on".

Now... put them in the context of Rev. Wright's youtube clip. I suspect there are likewise folks that see Wright's sermon and say "right on!"

All I'm saying here is that there seems to be a doublestandard.... maybe about what's "acceptably controversial" and what's not "acceptably controversial".

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

Hmmm

Yes, I agree that reasonable people can disagree on abortion, and what is considered controversial by one person can be considered acceptable by another.

However, there is a difference between issues which happen to fall in the moral grey zone, and issues that fall into the moral red zone ~ hate speech is one of them.

I do not care what your moral compass is, everyone SHOULD be outraged by Rev. Wright's remarks. Now, I realize that not everyone is ever outraged by the same thing, but there is a clear distinction between moral grey zone issues, and moral black/white issues.

To extend your abortion logic: two people can reasonably disagree on whether abortion is murder. However, you will not find very many people who will not see murder as murder.

To the people who look at Rev. Wright's sermon, and say right on, I can only say: a lot of people look at American (or Jewish, or...name your nationality) blood being spilled, and say "right on". If you say "right on" to Rev. Wright, you have no right to lecture anyone else who says "right on".

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

Perhaps there are portions of the sermon that I haven't heard.

Can you quote me the part you're talking about?

I've listened to and watched the YouTube snippet both online and on TV.... The 'inflammatory' rhetoric I heard was basically around the whole "Hillary ain't never been called a N***" riff.... now - as a white male, I'm hardly in a position to sit in judgment on the whole "Who has had it rougher". I personally don't think, strictly from a politically practical standpoint, victimhood will sell either in a primary nor a GE.

The other 'inflammatory' rhetoric was around the whole "God Bless America, no GOD DAMN AMERICA!" riff.... Well... frankly, I don't agree with this either, but to be quite honest -- neither do I necessarily begrudge anyone that says otherwise.

I've got a pretty good grasp of American history - I was a History minor in college. Frankly, there's ample evidence for someone to say precisely that. I mean - set aside African-Americans for a moment and look strictly at our treatment of the Native American peoples... There's no getting around the fact that we conducted perhaps the most 'successful' genocide in the history of modern (say -- post-Renaissance) civilization. Sure - you can say we learned from our UK parents, but there's little we can do or say to forgive the fact that we annihilated the overwhelming majority of the native inhabitants of what is now our nation.

Does that mean I personally endorse the statement 'GOD DAMN AMERICA'? No.... I don't personally partake of "white guilt". However - I think it's important that we recognize our failings so that we learn from them. I think there's national penance to be paid. That's how we progress as a nation of a people.

A week or so back -- I posted some thoughts on Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and other preeminent American leaders.

Ultimately - despite the fact that Washington was a self-aggrandizing cad, Jefferson a flip-flopping hypocrite, etc -- there were simply amazing men who accomplished some pretty amazing feats.

I mean - the magnitude of Washington stepping away, first after the Revolution, then after his second term - is historically amazing. I don't think one could find a better example of personal courage. We owe so much of what's right and good about this nation to such leaders...but that doesn't mean we overlook their failings.

My point is that I guess I have bigger "grey area" than you seem to.

I personally don't find Mother Theresa's statement in the "red zone" either (like I said, while I have personal differences, I really am a Catholic)... but - as a liberal, I can absolutely see the POV of someone who might.

I personally don't find Rev. Wright's statements in the "red zone" either (political calculus aside). I can see the POV of someone who might

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, obviously your logic is flawed: (none / 0)

despite my rhetorical device, (which you took out of context, ironically bolstering my point) it is unnecessary to prove that Mother Theresa could be demonized to show that Rev Wright is being demonized. In fact, THAT would be logically flawed.

But for fun, here:

Firstly, Mother Theresa was a hypocrite who didn't really even believe in Jesus. "everyone is Jesus in disguise." she said, hereticaly, in the context of believing that Jesus was just a metaphor, mocking the very concept of Christianity, as she was often like to do. In fact, all she cared about was fame and glory: "Being... forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat."
Ultimately, her life represents nothing other than a thirsting for fame and a nihilistic belief: "I know that god will not give me anything." And her mission to fuel the flames of discontent in the world: "To keep a lamp burning, you've got to keep putting oil in it."
ANd finally, her last comandment to her followers: to kill: "a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, obviously your logic is flawed: (none / 0)

WOW

I mean..WOW.

Rev. Wright is a misunderstood saint, and Mother Theresa is a hypocrite !!

WOW!!

Do you have anything to say about Jesus ? Or how about Buddha ? Didn't he walk out on his wife and children ? Does that make him the devil ??

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, obviously your logic is flawed: (none / 0)

Uh, are you just trying to be difficult?

I stated that you could take quotes out of context to make anyone, even Mother Theresa, sound controversial.

You asked me to do that, because you thought it would prove my point. I assumed you were trying to "call my bluff."

Even though your reasoning is a "all fruit are apples" logical fallacy, I did so, just for fun.

What I wrote were all Mother Theresa quotes taken out of context. If you played them long enough on Fox News, some dunder-heads would take them seriously, just like the Rev. Wright stuff.

But it was all in fun.

Zonk's apparent argument, that Mother Theresa really WAS controversial is much more powerful and a very good match to Rev Wright.

As another example, I am a MASSIVE Gandhi lover. However, he said many many things that would be very controversial today that I don't agree with. I also don't agree with the way he treated his family. But he was a great man in spite of these things. To try to attack Obama via Wright is the same as attacking Martin Luther King because he said he learned from Gandhi.

And it sounds like you're making this point for me: yes, Jesus and Buddha did things that were controversial, but it does not make them evil. Same goes for Wright, no?

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, obviously your logic is flawed: (none / 0)

Actually, you're spot on regarding Ghandi.

Ghandi certainly was no Nazi nor a Nazi sympathizer (or more accurately, Imperial Japanese sympathizer)... He wanted India to be fighting the forces of fascism, too -- but on an equal footing, not as an imperial UK holding.

Ghandi spent most of WWII in prison for actively pursuing Indian independence, when, per Churchhill and the UK powers that be -- it was the same as giving aid and comfort to the Axis.

The bottom line always seems to be that if you want to find "controversy" -- you're not going to have much trouble finding it.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, obviously your logic is flawed: (none / 0)

Most of the leaders of the Indian National Congress were in prison because "they wanted India to be fighting the forces of fascism, too -- but on an equal footing, not as an imperial UK holding."

Gandhi was in prison because of that, AND because he wanted to use his non-violence resistance (that was the only acceptable method of fighting to him) on Hitler.

I have a hard time seeing any controversy in that !!

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, obviously your logic is flawed: (none / 0)

Just as a matter of truth seeking,

you should look up what Gandhi said before his autobiography. Most of what we know of him is from his autobiography, but some people have compiled accounts of his public writing from earlier on. I think you'd be surprised.

As a huge Gandhi fan, I have to admit I'm shocked by the hateful and old-fashioned nature of much of what he had to say. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I believe he was trying to be pragmatic in his arguments that, for example,

--The white race is superior, but just after them the Indians are superior.
--Only men can achieve moshk
--The Nazi's treatment of the Jews was justifiable
--The cast system was for the most part, just.

Now all of those statements were made in the context of seeking a just political cause, IMO, but some of his writings were ugly.

There are several books about this. I think they are unfair and biased. BUt no less than these FOx news attacks on Rev. Wright.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, obviously your logic is flawed: (none / 0)

Okay, I get it...you are doing a thought excersize. Why don't you use better logic then

"everyone is Jesus in disguise." she said, hereticaly

There is nothing heretic in saying that Jesus is everywhere. You will have to find a better example, if you want to call Mother Theresa a hypocrite.

And, it does not come even close to hate speech!

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're correct, (none / 0)

I picked things that would be seen as banal when placed in their proper context. However: "a child must die so that you may live" is certainly more controversial than hate speech.

But this is at least an conversation and its one of the few I've had with HRC supporters at Mydd.

So, please explain to me, in their intended context, which of Wright's comments you found so offensive.

As I've said, after understanding them in context, I believe the CONTENT he advocated was:

1. The Iraq war is bad.

Aspects of US foreign policy including the historical facts of our involvement in Latin America and Richard Nixon's involvement in the "war on drugs" were wrong, and lead, in part, to the US's current public image problem in the world.
The freedom to say 1 and 2 are important even if they sound controversial--yes, it's my understanding that this was part of the reason his comments were so ugly, to prove a point about academic freedom and freedom of speech. Of course, it would be ironic for you to condemn him without looking into the context of his speech.
The fact that current corporate economic system is unfair and corrupt and disproportionately hurts poor people of color.

Now, HOW he said it WAS shocking, even to me! But the content of what he said I agree with 100%.

Perhaps there's a statement I missed that you could explain to me IN CONTEXT.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're correct, (none / 0)

I picked things that would be seen as banal when placed in their proper context. However: "a child must die so that you may live" is certainly more controversial than hate speech.

I fail to see any controversy in "a child must die..." They are both (that and the Jesus is everywhere) banal, even without any context.

(1) The Iraq war IS bad. War is ALWAYS bad (except when it is good, I suppose). Were you for the war when it counted (in 2002/2003) ? Most people in the US were (>75%, according to the polls)

(2) There are many aspects of US foreign policy which is bad. I will not quibble with you on your list..I have my own, and it differs from yours.

(3) Freedom to say 1 and 2 is not just "important", it is paramount.

But you cannot cross that line, and advocate hatred (US KKK of A, G-D A), or propagate a harmful myth (US Govt. made AIDS). You do have freedom of speech to say that, but you also then have the obligation to be shunned as a hatemonger.

(4) As to your claim that "current corporate economic system is unfair and corrupt and disproportionately hurts poor people of color." I am glad Obama never whines like this (I admire that about him)

People of color have plenty of opportunities ~ as proven most recently by Michelle and Barack Obama. The current corporate climate does hurt people without high school and college degrees...but the solution to that is to stay in school, instead of whining about color.

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 05:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're correct, (none / 0)

So I gather that:

1. You believe in killing children (no context allowed!) ;)

You are against war on principle but not against the Iraq war. You should check your polling on the start of the war. On the eve of the war, 70% of Americans were against the war, especially when polled honestly about the possible outcome. The day the war started, the number reversed as Americans are very patriotic and want to support the troops. ANyway....
You don't understand that I chose my US foreign policy list because it was Wright's list, in the context of the "God Damn America" thing.
We both agree with Mr. Wright on free speech. I guess that's something.
You disagree with the facts of world land prices, property values and worker safety laws as they actually exist in the world and hence think that expression of those facts and the ramifications of them are "whining."
You believe a randomly picked bit of data or two refutes a proven pattern of outcomes in the US for races (prison, educational opportunity, health, income...)

Well, I don't think you and I are ever EVER going to agree on much then, but thanks for trying. I guess in the end that's all we can do.

Peace.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're correct, (none / 0)

1. You believe in killing children (no context allowed!) ;)

I challenge you to explain how you arrive at this conclusion

2. You are against war on principle but not against the Iraq war. You should check your polling on the start of the war. On the eve of the war, 70% of Americans were against the war, especially when polled honestly about the possible outcome. The day the war started, the number reversed as Americans are very patriotic and want to support the troops. ANyway....

I challenge you to explain how you can claim that I am "against war on principle but not against the Iraq war". I challenge you to provide polling data that supports your claim that "On the eve of the war, 70% of Americans were against the war, especially when polled honestly about the possible outcome. The day the war started, the number reversed as Americans are very patriotic and want to support the troops"

5. You disagree with the facts of world land prices, property values and worker safety laws as they actually exist in the world and hence think that expression of those facts and the ramifications of them are "whining."

I said you were whining. I did not say you were whining because I disagreed with you on any of the factos "of world land prices etc..." You made that up...as you have made up most of your other conclusion...out of thin air. I said you were whining...because thats what you are doing !!

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 06:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, playtime is done. (none / 0)

I think your mode of communication is certainly tenacious, but I think you could work on your honesty.

I was earnestly trying to play nice thinking that we could agree to disagree. Here's my new conclusion: you just want to have a little play fight.

I don't.

I like to have mature discussions.

But just so you'll shut your outrageous pie hole I'll meet your silly school yard "challenge:"

1. If you track the conversation you'll find that you agreed that this statement needs no other context and is not controversial in this context: "Finally, (Mother Theresa commanded) her followers: to kill: "a child must die so that you may live as you wish." Follow my syllogism, if you will:

1. I said Mother Theresa told her followers to kill children.

2. You said that this statement, in this context, is not controversial, meaning that advocating for the killing of children, should not, in your view, arouse discussion or any differing of opinions.

3. I conclude then that your opinion does not differ from the stated position, that it is good to kill children.

(Do you see how silly you're being yet, with your little challenge? But I continue...)
2. Ok, can't keep my "challenges" straight, you know, it's not everyday I get real stinkoman style challenges....

Ok 1st, you challenge me to prove that most Americans opposed this war on its eve. Well, how's this: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_03_16_ar chive.html

You'll find that on March 18th 2003 he mentioned the same thing, though what he linked to is now gone or difficult to find. If you don't believe Atrios, you can go over there and call him a liar too. Or you can assert that you are still unwilling to hear reason and I will give you some further schoolin'.

OK, next Challeeeeeeeenge:
I'm supposed to show why I assumed you were against war on principle but not against the Iraq war:

OK: you said "War is ALWAYS bad." I concluded from this that you are against war on principle. If you'd really really like to, we can argue over the subtle semantic nuances of each and every letter or if you really are not "against war on principle" then you can just say that, and I'll say I was wrong.

Now, in the whole context of our discussion, the purpose for me bringing up the war was that Rev Wright is against it. I was saying that him being against the war shouldn't be controversial. Since you brought it up again, the three possible reasons why are:

1. You disagree with Wright=you think the war is good and that saying the war is bad is an example of "hate speech."

Erm, you brought it up as a complete non-sequitur to confuse me.
I think that a football is not a good Christmas present.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assumed you were bringing it up for a reason. If this is not the case, then I admit that I was wrong.

ANd just FYI, like it makes me a better Democrat or something, I attended every hour of both days of anti-war protest at the University of Illinois on the eve of the war and brought bottles of water and food. ANd yes, if you really really like, I can send you wax from my vigil candle for your chemical analysis to PROVE it.

FINAL CHAAAAAALLLLLLEEEEEENNNNNGGGGGEEEEE!!!!

From Wiktionary, (if you will accept, or I'd gladly source whatever dictionary you'd prefer)

to whine

1. to utter a whine (a long drawn complaining high pitch or sound)

The jet engines whined at take off.

2. to complain or protest in a childish manner or about trivial things

The Red Soxs fans were whining after they lost to the Yankees again.

1. As I did not make a sound and as my speaking voice is very low, resonant, suave and relaxed, I'm guessing you consider my whining to fit into category 2.

2. So, to meet your CHALLENGE I must only note that I was not complaining or protesting, as I was explaining to you the content of the "hate speech" that you are whining about but that you apparently haven't taken the time to research or understand in context. I don't think paraphrasing ideas that I may or may not agree with could be called whining.

CHALLENGE COMPLETED!!!!!!!

Now, anyway, given your mode of discussion, I think we're done talking. I can't keep up with your challenges. Again, you are a very tenacious supporter of your candidate. Perhaps once we have a candidate you'll be more interested in reason and less interested in ad-hominem attacks on my character which I must defend in silly grade-school challenges and more interested in truth-seeking. Good luck with your candidate, I hope you aren't disappointed and I hope you don't later regret that you personally participated in smearing a good man's name by taking his words out of context for political gain.

Thanks for the challenge, I haven't argued like that since 2nd grade.

Peace

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, playtime is done. (none / 0)

My god that's silly. I sure hope no one but you reads that.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 11:41:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Comments that were taken out of context... (none / 0)

Anyway, are you an "A, B or a C" by my measure, or is there something that I missed? I really would like someone here to explain it to me.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a (2.00 / 0)

According to today's Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, 52% of likely Democratic primary voters are against Obama.

by zenful6219 on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:40:51 PM EST

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack O (2.00 / 1)

Great post. My unscientific poll in my dairy last night pretty much said the same thing. Most people thought he would either self-destruct in the primaries or lose in the GE.

The same trend is showing up in both Rasmussen and Gallup polls.

Plus something that will put a smile on your face. Obama supporters over at TPM are complaining that Russ Limbaugh is messing with the Democratic primary by encouraging Republicans to vote for Hillary. My thoughts were than Obama actively pursued them to switch to Dem. Hillary is winning among Dem voters, now she is splitting the Republican vote.

This is poetic justice.

"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."

by LadyEagle on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 01:41:53 PM EST

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack O (2.00 / 1)

Wow...

You mean your poll at My-temple-of-Hillary-cultistsDD revealed bad news for Obama?

Color me shocked.

by zonk on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It seems dishonest to me (none / 0)

to ignore motives.

Some republicans are voting for Obama because they actually like him and think he'd make a good president. That's called: growing the party.

Republican leaders are urging people to vote for HRC because they believe that her leadership style will damage the Democratic party and cause a huge shift back to Republican leadership, whether or not she's elected.

It seems that you're either blind motives or think that the motives are meaningless or that you're being dishonest.

Perhaps you could explain it to me.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:10:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To add-- (none / 0)

I don't necessarily agree with Rush, but I can tell the difference between motives.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To add-- (none / 0)

And please tell us how you know that Obama's Republican supporters have different motives than Hillary's Republican supporters. Because of an appeal from Rush? Because of timing? Sorry, that's not good enough for me. If I see exit poll data or some other compelling data that Obama's Republican supporters than different motivations than Hillary's, I'll believe you.

by markjay on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 02:25:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To add-- (none / 0)

First, let's be clear and specific about what we're discussing:

Barack Obama has tried to reach out to indies and Repubs. Back when he was polling as very popular with these groups, and the media narrative was "who will the indies go for? McCain or Obama?" the outcome of the elections reflected the polling and the media narrative.

And, I can offer you my family. They are all moderate Republicans who are against the war (and he's the only remaining candidate who's been against the war from the start,) and they like Obama, think he can bring Americans together. Well, and to be honest, they think HRC is divisive.

Now that's anecdotal evidence, but let me offer it to bolster the overriding media narrative that has accompanied this election, the timing of the AM radio contingent's appeal followed by election results that reflect them and the overall strategy sought by each candidate:

BO= "I want to bring Americans together."
HRC="I'm the fighter!"

Ultimately, if you wish to be stubborn, I concur, my conclusion is, though better based, as weak as any "popular vote" construction (such as "HRC is winning REAL Democrats" in this election.

IF that's your stance, then the only meaningful measure I can see is the seated delegate count, which BHO has already won.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To add-- (none / 0)

Well, I see your points, and I also understand what you are saying about your family. I also think, though, that there are lots of moderate Republicans who recognize that the Bill Clinton administration was pretty moderate and was great for the economy -- and that they therefore might be inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton. Plus, I expect there are a lot of female pro-choice Republicans who would welcome the opportunity to vote for a moderate, female Democrat such as Hillary. And, given the revelations about Jeremiah Wright, I expect that fewer numbers of moderate Republicans will find Obama attractive (no comment on your own family, who may or may not be representative of others).

Also, I've read that the kind of "strategic" voting that Rush Limbaugh called for, and that Daily Kos's Markos earlier called for in regards to Democrats for Romney, almost never occurs in sizeable numbers. Though people call for it a lot, previous research has shown that it seldom actually occurs much, and that when people cross parties to vote they usually vote for the candidate they prefer, rather than for the candidate they really hate but view as a weaker candidate.

The bottom line -- I think that Republican and Independent votes for both Obama and Hillary should be taken at face value. How much importance we give to them as compared to votes from Democrats is another matter, but I don't think there is any basis to assume that the Republican voters for Obama and Hillary have different motives.

by markjay on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:10:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To add-- (none / 0)

I concur, however, in what has become a tight race on our side, and in a race where the Republican nomination is sewn up, I have some real doubts about this.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter, as the voting portion of the election is over.

What is left is the spin.

Obama has won the only rational tally of the electorate: the seated delegates. There will be no standardized way to compute the "popular vote" which would have to mitigate weighing too many disparate factors such as caucuses to open primaries to closed primaries.

In effect, the election as it stands is about whether the results of the election are valid or not with HRC arguing that the election shouldn't count or only parts of it should (the parts she won) and Obama arguing that the he won the voting portion of the election.

I guess we'll find out who wins that argument.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 04:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To add-- (none / 0)

But to get specific again,

Some posters were arguing that Obama had reached out to Republicans and that it was somehow just that Republicans were now going to CLinton.

That accepts my prior, which you did not accept, but ignores the motives.

By previous comment was unnecessary to address those arguments.

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:04:16 PM EST

HEre's the quote: (none / 0)

"My thoughts were than Obama actively pursued them to switch to Dem. Hillary is winning among Dem voters, now she is splitting the Republican vote.

This is poetic justice."

That accepts my priors but ignores the motives.

I'm willing to play along, but changing the argument in mid-stream seems dishonest too.

The shared prior is:

BHO actively pursued Repubs to bring them into the party.
HRC is the recipient of Republicans trying to elect her because they think she'll hurt the party.

Do you still agree that there's no difference in motives here?

by luckymortal on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST

Re: POLL: Jeremiah Wright a Liability for Barack O (none / 0)

These numbers do not surprise me in the least. I really doubt that Obama is going to be able to get past this. He is giving a press conference tomorrow morning. It will be interesting to see how he tries to explain a 20 year close relationship with Wright.

by grlpatriot on Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.