Wolff109, can you explain why you troll rated my comment?

I thought Obama did well on this; renouncing the words but not the (flawed) person of Wright.

That shows where he stands on divisive words AND that he's not going to be cowed by stupid media controversies into throwing people under the bus.

What this showed was that his relationship with Wright is more important than a week's worth of media controversy. I respect him for that, and for standing up to Fox News & CNN's 24x7 pressure coverage in such an admirable way.

Since he won't throw his friend under the bus, I think that we can expect he won't throw his values and convictions under the bus the next time media and political opponents are hysterically urging him to do so.

More TR abuse by wolff109

I do believe progressives should have the guts to argue back when they disagree, and argue strongly against what is contrary to progressive values.

I don't believe that we should be demanding renouncements.  I think it's gotten out of hand and frankly I don't even know what it is for.. I think it is one thing to renounce an endorsement which seems to be a more formal connection and thus can be formally rejected.  But I vehemently disagree with the notion of renouncing a person.. that goes too close (and maybe crosses a line) toward dehumanizing them which I believe is always wrong.

You are one of the few in the 'sphere that really understands what 'being progressive' is about.

Obama supporters, as a general rule, do not. Lemme paraphrase Henry Adams,

'It's about principles....not men.'

Keep fighting for what's right Jerome. Help is on the way. Those self-styled 'leaders'  in the 'sphere are going to find out that drinking the Kool-Aide is....

Deadly.

Metaphor folks.

Show me the links to progressive bloggers who've used "Hillary" and the "N" word in the same sentence. Show me a reference to the U.S. of KKKKA. Show me prog bloggers who've said "God damn America." I want to see it.

Come now, Walter.  Please.  Ooooh, some unknown users on some blogs had mean posts, really mean and nasty.  Look, Wright is a 'leader' in his community and has influence.  Obama is in his community and is an idol of his (both ways).  Obama is running for president. Obama approves of Wright because he is dedicated to his ministry.  Obama did not throw Wright under the bus and Obama only 'addressed' the issue after being caught.

Following your logic, let's not fault Bush for [fill in the blank] because somebody, somewhere, posted something worse than Bush.

'I'm not saying Wright wasn't wrong', uhhh, yes you are.

a spiritual mentor and friend for 20 yrs, it carries a bit more weight than when it comes from an anonymous poster on a blog who has zero relationship to the candidate.

Wright's tirades are reflecting badly on Obama and that's a fact.

maybe i'm too picky, but when i run into that kind of talk, i get up and walk out. too bad your candidate didn't, walt.

also, those imaginary Obama coat-tails, if they ever were to be, are getting thinner all the time.

Choosing to comment on the front page is the privilege of the site owner.

If you truly want talk about disgruntled screeds that create vitrol and anger, I can direct you to numerous sites that are far worse.

More like refereeing World Federation Wrestling. I really think this diary has little interest in journalistic objectivity, or even progressive dialogue. I think it's a baiting exercise - why don't you and he go fight.

Start out with not distorting the quote and you're most of the way home.  She said nothing at all that even implied your "seating . . . as they are."  Why did she fly up to MI today to lobby for a re-vote if she is insisting on "seating [them] . . . as they are"?

Here's what she really said:

This has been an incredible primary season so far. There's been more passion and enthusiasm than anyone could have ever predicted. Democrats across the country are turning out in record numbers to have their say in this historic election. Here in Michigan, 600,000 people turned out on a cold and snowy day in January to cast your votes and you made it abundantly clear that you wanted your voices to be heard and your votes to be counted. In Florida, 1.7 million people did exactly the same. Now, these nearly 2.5 million Americans are in danger of being shut out of our democratic process. I think that is wrong and, frankly, it is un-American, and we cannot let that continue. My very first job in politics was working for the Democratic National Committee, going door-to-door, registering voters in Texas in 1972. I threw myself in to that hard work because I believed then, as I believe now, that every American has a right to be part of our great democracy.

Every voice should have the chance to be heard and every vote counted. This goes way beyond this election and it goes way beyond who's running, because no matter where you were born, or how much money you were born into, no matter where you worship or the color of your skin, it is a bedrock American principle that we are all equal in the voting booth.

We the people - government of the people and by the people - consent of the governed - these are the things this country is all about.  Damn right that denying the Democratic voters of two states their right to participate in selecting the nominee who will be the next President is un-American.

If democratic government isn't American, what is?

From Taylor Marsh:

1. If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

2. Would you support that candidate if, after knowing of or hearing those sermons, he or she still appointed that minister to serve on his or her "Religious Advisory Committee" of his or her presidential campaign?

Let me help you - the 'progressive blogsphere' depends on being credible and fair and not being purely political.  Bloggers who turn a blind eye to Obama/Wright are hurting it's credibility.
We want to lean on facts and good ethics to support the people and policies we promote.  To ignore Wright and not demand more of Obama hurts that effort.  Just saying, 'hey Obama said Wright is wrong' isn't good enough.  That shows a lack of outrage that should exist.

In summary, the post is about the larger movement of the blogsphere, much bigger than Hillary, Obama and 2008.

And Hillary is tested?  Please!!!!

Here's the point that so many Obama supporter just don't seem willing to grasp: It's not about beating Hillary Clinton for the nomination. The point is about getting a Democrat into the White House in January. I pretty much despise Hillary Clinton but I'm holding my nose and supporting her anyway because cold hard electoral reality says she's the most likely to beat John McCain. In truth, I'd support the rotting corpse of Saddam Hussein if I though it would be the most electable Democratic candidate. This country can't withstand four more years of Republican rule and we need to back the most electable Democrat.    

Obama's connection with Wright is poison. Absolute poison. It makes it impossible for him to gain the support of the blue collar Democrats it will take to win in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. And in the real world no Democrat can put together a successful electoral strategy without winning two of those three states. Period. It can't be done. You can call the blue collar Democrats who won't support Obama racists if that makes you feel better. But that's not going to stop them from voting for McCain because of Wright. Be sure to call me a racist, too, if that also makes you feel better. Wax poetic about hope and change and Obama's speeches. And yada, yada, yada all you want - but you can't change reality. And the reality is that McCain will win Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida in a contest against Obama. And that means McCain will be president on 2009.

Does that make it clearer, Raul?

The inference that I draw is that "untested" can lead to lots of surpises...and, oft times, not positive ones.  Also: How a new challenger responds to the trying situation is extremely important as well.  In judging the response in the context of a general election, I try to replay examples of earlier video and audio footage used successfully against Democratic candidates in general elections.  For example: As a Democrat, I strongly supported Dukakis in 1988--and based upon summer poll numbers which showed him almost 30 points ahead of Bush I that summer--I believed that he was well on his way to becoming the next President.  Then, things happened for a couple reasons--minor missteps such as the inappropriate tank with helmet picture and the academic answer to a debate question about how he would respond to a sexual attack on his wife.  Add to that the base ad from Republicans called "Willie Horton" (as a means of filling-in-the-blanks for what we didn't know about Dukakis governance in Massachusetts.)  For those of us who remember that campaign season, we can see how incredibly easy the Wright situation makes it for the Republicans.  As for Hillary Clinton: We know that there will be no untested and unpleasant surprises.  She will not make video/audio missteps that will allow for that kind of fill-in-the-blanks ads.

Jerome just wanted to show off his 'Obama is a hypocrite' video. This has been a major theme of the Hillary offensive against Obama. Hillary can't be the better candidate so Obama has to be dragged down to her level. Apparently 'hypocrisy' polls very negative with the blue-collar voters.

I don't see the comparison between Imus getting a laugh at the expense of young girls dignity and Wright's rant against the evils of a 'racist' America but...what ever.

There are other blinders on as well.

Somehow it is no longer operative that Hillary said that she never took a position in support of NAFTA - now that documents prove otherwise. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/19/2059 41/701

run over Wright after staying in his church, that would have looked incredibly INSINCERE and would have been looked as HYPOCRITICAL and just done for politics.

I think that Obama said what was in his heart that he saw the good and the bad of the Pastor who brought him Christianity.  He feels that the Pastor is like family to him and I think he really loves him, warts and all.

Now that was Obama's choice.  

If the superdelegates think that Obama is too much of a liability for the general election than it is up to THEM to step in and CHANGE IT.  They can switch their votes to Hillary if that is the case.

It's up to the superdelegates now.  

I agree, Obama took a very tough stance with the speech and when he does that he comes across as genuine and sincere.  He was blunt about what the best political move would be, he was blunt in his rejection of Wright's statements and the thinking behind them, but he said "I'm not going to do the easy thing."  The people who're saying that it was a politically-foolish thing to do may be right- and as a result, it looks far more genuine and personal.

Really?

the only ones who are supporting Obama are "those people."

You mean like the Clinton supporter with the recommended diary?

Cause they wouldn't have ever made an issue of it anyway.  Of course not.

Correction: finding Rev. Wright's racist rhetoric did not require pouring over hours and hours of tape:  the church sold his 'greatest hits' (complete with racist garbage) on its website--easily available.  I'm just surprised it's taken 'til now for all his vile invective to be noticed.