While Hagee's speech is equally hateful and divisive, McCain was not a member of Hagee's church for 20 years. He cannot be tied as closely to him as Obama can.

obama

What's a freeper?

'Man, that sh*t is really awful. Freepers made those. "

Yes, and this is only the beginning, what they could throw together over the weekend. Just wait until the real high dollar outfits get hold of this, I'm certain it will be far more compelling.

I have been afraid that far more than a mere nomination contest could end up at stake here. This is the type of inflammatory garbage that ends up in hate crimes and worse. There are too many people who do not limit their self expression to voting and writing on blogs.

Perhaps we should all chip in and send Gerry Ferraro and Jeremiah on that nice long cruise, far away, where they will both be safe.

They are terrible and they, and many more like them more slickly produced, will be playing in our living rooms on a loop in November if Obama is the nominee.

McCain won't have to say a word and he will win in a landslide.

that is not a true statement at all.

It's wrong. The picture was taken during the national anthem - this is what you get when you start to believe in right-wing propaganda just because it is against the primary candidate you don't support.

is this what the debate over the candidates has come to? did he or did he not have his hands at his side during the pledge of allegiance. There are plenty of good reasons to dislike Obama, but this? Really?

I'm asking this seriously. Do you think Obama hates America?

It's not the Pledge of Allegiance, it's the National Anthem, and, as pointed out below, there's no protocol for covering one's heart during the anthem. Some do, some don't. Most don't. Ever been to a ball game?

Please, Democrats, criticize the candidates on issues all you want, but don't repeat this kind of crap. And CORRECT it every time you encounter it.

Surely you mean 'better' than Edwards in this context?

Funny, I've been hearing that for over a year and he now has the lead in delegates and popular vote.  Are you proposing a coup?

I'm not worried, I've got to tell you.  I kinda' suspect that it may even have been Obama's campaign that precipitated this controversy, or an ally, in the wake of the Ferraro tempest.  Have you noticed that the Obama campaign has been tidying up loose ends lately?  Rezko, Wright, earmarks, tax returns?  Why do you suppose he's doing that, eh?  'Cuz he's trembling in fear?  I don't think so.

Superdelegates are still leaking his way, not to mention late results from previous contests.  If I were the Hillary campaign I would be getting ready for some incoming on ethics and transparency and getting my story straight on just what foreign policy experience my candidate actually wasn't exaggerating.  Obama has just cleared decks for action.

if he takes this all the way to the end, I agree, he won't be our vp either.

but if after PA, KY, WV...if he is ready for a unity ticket, I'm for it.

John, for the longest time I was for this "Dream Ticket" too. But could Hillary really afford to have another 4-8 years of investigations by the Republicans, going after Veep Obama, and derailing any attempts to bridge the divides within Congress (something she has done well in the last eight years)?

I don't see it. He has too many unknowns.

She wants to move this country forward. An Obama association would hamper that goal.

He needs to go get vetted, get more "centerist",get some experience, and then come back to Americans and do it again down the road.

WRIGHT IS A TOTAL NUTJOB, BUT A KICKASS SPEAKER.

That Wright and Hillary show PASSION in their words is a result of speaking on TOPICS THEY BELIEVE. Personally, I think Wright is disgusting. Having worked the aftermath of the World Trade Center attacks, it is even more offensive.

That being my personal editorial, regarding the the policy positions, such as health care, or No Child Left Behind or the Economy, he is UNABLE to speak to with "fire" because they are someone ELSE'S words, and not positions developed after long years of PERSONAL study, understanding and conviction. THIS, in part, IS the "experience" argument.

Despite their obvious differences in what they SAY, Wright and Clinton both BELIEVE and UNDERSTAND their own positions, and in doing so, can express them with knowledge and passion. Obama has no such experience nor understanding of the issues he orates.

And despite his great skill at oratory, the most "fire" I have witnessed from Obama is "we can't wait."

Perhaps we now know why. There is too much coming down the pike and my guess is this will not be the last of this, or of his other 'associations.'

But a lot of this "concern stuff" isn't well-intentioned.

We're DOOMED!   I mean if a Democrat isn't able to convince every single Republican to vote for him, we don't stand a CHANCE in November.

This is taking an interesting turn:

CHICAGO - The church attended by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) fought back Sunday against mounting criticism of its pastor, accusing the media of character assassination and "crucifixion."

Otis Moss III, the current pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, used his pulpit to defend his congregation and its past minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., from a wave of controversy stemming from inflammatory statements made by Wright.

"We have listened and watched as the wonderful work of our church has been vilified this week," he told about 3,000 congregants on Palm Sunday morning. "This week should be special for us because I guess we know a little something about crucifixion."

The church also released a statement that began: "Nearly three weeks before the 40th commemorative anniversary of the murder of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.'s character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."

Trinity, an 8,000-member church on the South Side of Chicago, came under intense scrutiny over the past week for statements made by Wright that harshly criticized American society as racist and blamed U.S. leaders for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Moss delivered a fiery sermon Sunday, defending the African-American church's right to speak out about social issues. He stressed Trinity's work in its still-impoverished community, mentioning the church's scholarship programs, drug counseling, SAT prep classes, and missions to Africa.

"Our very sanity is connected to the church. If it hadn't been for the church we would have lost our minds in the insanity of racism," he said, in a sermon titled, "Why the Black Church Won't Shut Up."

Lisa Lere and Mike Allen - Church accuses media of 'crucifixion' Politico 17 Mar 08

Things aren't always what they seem at first glance.

Raw deal?!

Wright said FDR lied about Pearl Harbor and by choice and actions ALLOWED THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN BOYS TO BURN TO DEATH.
ON PURPOSE..

Wright said the US government created the HIV virus in order to purposefully cause a global genocide to kill tens of millions of people of color.

Wright said "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye....We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians .. and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

BTW, that chicken line is verbatim of what Malcolm X said about the "justice" of the murder of JFK you know.

"I can just imagine the Republican operatives now fanning out to flea markets and garage sales throughout the Chicago area to complete their set of Wright videos, looking for the pearl: a pan to Obama and family nodding approvingly."

I am certain someone , somewhere, will have exactly what they need and sell it to them...

'A white army of legs?'  Is that the pearl of wisdom buried in your lengthy post?  

"largely from the bizarre Howard Dean methodology of assigning proportionate representation to states"

No, Dean screwed up MI and FL, but this was done previously. I don't know when it was done, maybe from the '72 reform, or maybe from the post-84 or post-88 Jackson demands.

Well, if you're going to make the specious (at best) argument that: Obama is the black JFK; therefore, Obama should somehow be inspiring the masses, like JFK; this should then translate into landslide election victories; but Obama is still just barely ahead; therefore, Obama is not the black JFK, so will lose. At least get your history right. Although the primary system was very different in 1960, Kennedy was dogged throughout the process by claims of youth and inexperience, and many old-line Democrats were against him (some even making the argument that he should be VP first, to gain experience). Although it seemed obvious going into the convention that Kennedy would get the nomination, it wasn't a done deal until the first vote. As you probably know, the GE in the fall was incredibly close, with JFK winning the popular vote by around a million votes (49.7% to Nixon's 49.5%). So I'm not sure where you're going with that comparison.

On to your more specific claims:

For example, they persistently maintain that Senator Obama has an "insurmountable delegate and popular vote lead," but that is only real if Florida and Michigan voters, as their ballots were first cast, are not counted.

If MI and FL are added, and Obama is awarded the uncommitted MI votes, he's still in the lead:
http://tinyurl.com/2e83qq

Which then brings the rest of us bedrock Democrats to ask: Why, if Obama is the African-American JFK, does he not prevail anywhere in blue state America outside of his native Illinois?

um, of states won by Kerry, Obama has won: ME, MN, WI, VT, CT, WA, DE, HI and D.C. You might not count them as blue, but they are and most of them have been for some time.

And why can't Obama do better than losing 83 of 88 counties in Ohio's Democratic primary--wherein he outspent Clinton by at least four to one, and had the support of every major Ohio newspaper except two?

If your argument is about electability in the fall based on the electoral college, what does number of counties won have to do with anything? Hillary won well in Ohio, but both are slightly behind McCain in polls right now, if that matters. I would hope that Ohio Democratic activists would work hard in the fall to support whichever candidate gets the nomination.

And why shouldn't he have done better than 33% in Florida?  Even if there wasn't a campaign there?

I think even such a partisan as yourself must be honest in admitting that in every state in which he's actively campaigned, Obama has done an admirable job of closing Clinton's very large leads. The point of campaigning is becoming better known by voters. If the candidates aren't allowed to campaign, why not just go by the popular poll numbers last fall? Give the nom to Clinton and save all that money?

And they ignore this reality: that in most of the major state primaries, from California to Florida and many states in-between, Obama has come in third in actual vote totals, behind both Clinton and McCain.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'major' states, but based on standard Clinton talking points, I'll give it a shot (in millions): CA: Clinton, 2.5, McCain, 2.4, Obama, 2; NY Clinton, 1, Obama, .7, McCain, .3; NJ, Clinton, .6, Obama, .49, McCain, .3; MA, Clinton, .7, Obama, .5, McCain, .2; VA, Obama, .6, Clinton, .35, McCain, .25; OH, Clinton, 1.2, Obama, .9, McCain, .55, TX, Clinton, 1.4, Obama, 1.3, McCain, .7; IL, Obama, 1.3, Clinton, .6, McCain, .4.

I could go on, but basically, in the states Clinton supporters count important, the only one in which McCain beats Obama is CA, where, by the way, Dem votes combined beat Rep votes combined by  over 2 million votes, so I have a hard time fathoming any argument that McCain will win there under any circumstances. So on this point, you are completely misstating the facts.

A man as inspiring and extraordinary as Obama has been painted by his suppporters, shouldn't really need to slash-and-burn his way through the Clinton element of the Democratic Party.  Large segments of that element should be flocking to Obama, everywhere he goes.

I've already addressed your spurious definition of blue states, but to get to the question of Clinton's supporters flocking to Obama: 1) this is a very hard fought primary with deeply held passions, and at this point, neither of the candidate's core demos are flocking to the other, except, 2) how do you explain Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia?

And even the obviously explosive implications of the Wright commentaries somehow elude the Obama enthusiasts.

This has been addressed at greater length elsewhere, but a few thoughts. I'm willing to concede that this may turn out to be a bigger issue than many Obama supporters now believe, but I don't think this is going to fly in the general because of McCain's many connections to much more objectionable religious leaders. I think most of Obama's current crop of supporters see this for what it really is--a few nasty statements in a 20-year career that say little about Obama himself--and are unlikely to change their support. Additionally, when the general rolls around, many of the Dems who find Wright's comments completely offensive are going to see that they are not Obama's comments, and that Obama is a much better candidate than McCain. McCain is running on Bush's legacy and Bush is at 30% right now. There is no way he's going to make that up, even with all the conservative Dems and swing voters who might be put off by Wright's remarks and unable to see that they aren't Obama's remarks.

Contrary to pollsters, Obama wasn't going to win Ohio even before the Wright commentaries.

The wide circulation of Wright's remarks came after Ohio.

But with neighbors like mine now fearful of being "punished for being White," forget about Obama carrying Ohio in the fall.

I don't know what you're getting at here or where you're coming from but electing a black president is no more going to punish white Americans than electing a white will punish blacks or electing a woman will punish a man. Come on, and you say you're a Democrat?

And I do believe that as "Ohio goes, so goes the nation."

Sorry, I'm a Mainer. That's ours, and this time around it rings true once again.

peace

Obama certainly knows what would greet him were he to get the nod, but he figures either: a) he can lose but he'll still have made history as the first black nominee, or b) he'll find a way to win somehow despite the odds (like, say a scandal or death ends McCain's candidacy and his VP is unviable). I think it's the epitome of arrogance. There's not one thought there as to the future of the Democratic Party, the AA community, minorities or the poor and working people in general, who would all be better off if Hillary is nominated and allowed to take the Presidency as polls are increasingly indicating she would.

Obama certainly knows what would greet him were he to get the nod, but he figures either: a) he can lose but he'll still have made history as the first black nominee, or b) he'll find a way to win somehow despite the odds (like, say a scandal or death ends McCain's candidacy and his VP is unviable). I think it's the epitome of arrogance. There's not one thought there as to the future of the Democratic Party, the AA community, minorities or the poor and working people in general, who would all be better off if Hillary is nominated and allowed to take the Presidency as polls are increasingly indicating she would.

Wait until they get the photos of Bill Cllinton and Wright hugging or Bill giving Wright an award.  I am sure they are out there, than they will put both Obama and the Clintons with Wright, but I also believe that there is a photo of Bush and Wright out there.  That would really be funny.  What would the repugs do then?  It would be really funny if there was a photo of Bush giving Wright an award.  If Wright is good enough for Bush??

Conservatives already dislike Clinton because she is the most aggressive in countering their entrenched interests (oil, war, gifts to Haliburton and other cronies, bigPharm, etc.). She won't be reaching too much across the aisle to cut deals, compromises and sell-outs with these interests when it goes against the interests of working people.

So Clinton is not that interested in trying to win over conservatives. Obama is, apparently, because he is trying to get Republicans and Indies to register Democrat-for-a-Day in PA, in a desperate effort to win at least one big state besides IL.

Sorry the link did not work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz83Oj9FX sw