What Wright has wrought

Maybe this was unavoidable, but the outcome is bleak. Regardless, it leaves no question as to why Clinton chose to dissociate herself from advocating in anyway, the acceptability of Wright. From Missouri via Rasmussen:

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Missouri voters believe that American society is generally fair and decent. Among these voters, McCain leads Clinton by thirty percentage points and Obama by thirty-four.

Twenty-two percent (22%) believe that society in the U.S. is generally unfair and discriminatory. Among these voters, both Democrats lead McCain by roughly a four-to-one margin.

That's fall-out from Wright, not against just Obama, but also Clinton, and most likely against the Democratic Party in general. It's branding of Democrats Obama, and Clinton, as anti-American.

I've recall seeing some pro-Obama supporters lament that Obama wasn't declared as the nominee already, when the Wright story hit, as then Dean/Pelosi/Reid would have all been able to 'go to bat' for Obama on the news networks. I count our lucky stars that was not the case. It was bad enough that not enough high profile Democrats would go out and throw Wright under the bus.

The politics of acquiescence by liberals to Wright's words continue to amaze me. Today we have some esteemed Theologian Martin Marty Defending Rev. Wright. The lack of distancing from Wright, in general, has already cost our '08 chances deeply in Missouri:

         Now    Feb
McCain   50     43
Clinton  41     42

McCain   53     42
Obama    38     40
In a month, a 1 point McCain lead over Clinton is now 9, and a lead of 2 by McCain over Obama has become 15 percent. It gets worse in MO. McCain's favorable/unfavorable rating is at 59/40. If McCain already has MO locked up by April, we are in deep trouble.

Nevertheless, I don't think that Obama has been hurt much by Wright in the nomination contest, for a number of reasons. He's already branded himself strongly with most Democrats paying attention, and there's seems too much emotional investment on both sides, for even something as radical as this revelation, to shake up that dynamic much, but the GE match-up is another matter.

Rasmussen's tracking numbers have allowed McCain to reach a double-digit over Obama, 51-41 nationally, for the first time; and over Clinton, 50-43-- which was at a double-digit lead a few days ago. If you just go and look over the numbers of the match-ups, its very easy to see the correlation between the Wright story breaking on the 13th, when both Clinton and Obama were tied with McCain at 44-44, and the widening of the lead by McCain over the past two weeks.

I don't think Clinton bringing up the issue of Wright was a matter of keeping the story alive. The polls show that nearly 90% of Americans already know and have an opinion about it, that's a done deal. Rather, Clinton was belatedly putting some needed distance between herself and Wright.

And spare me the whines about how I'm keeping the story alive. This story had legs the day it appeared, while all the partisans said it was dead by that Friday night. That not enough distance was made from Wright by Obama is what kept the story moving. All I'm trying to do is pull some heads of of the sand to show them the reality they thought existed for the '08 GE landscape has dramatically shifted as a result of Wright. This is March, long ways to go still, but the conservatives have done planted their seeds of smear.



Display:


Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 4)

"Rather, Clinton was belatedly putting some needed distance between herself and Wright."

Do you really believe Clinton thinks people are so stupid that without her explicit remarks they might confuse the situation and see her as  supporting the media snips of Wright's comments?  


by mady on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:27:37 PM EST

Re: What Wright has wrought (1.85 / 7)

I don't think it's a matter of anyone thinking people are stupid - it's just the truth.  Obama has been dragging down the Democratic brand, thanks in part to Wright.  And the Obama team explicity tried to drag her into it, using Ferraro in The Speech and pushing the Wright/Clinton photo.   As a result, Hillary is part of the Wright story whether she likes it or not.


99% perspiration
by DaveOinSF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 3)

Ha. Obama has been dragging down the brand. That's a laugh!


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (1.75 / 4)

You don't get out enough. Try talking to a few people you don't already agree with. It's absolutely true. If you don't want to do that, look at the numbers for cryin out loud. Obama, a brand new figure on the public scene who until recently had only positive reviews and suffered only the mildest attacks from his opponents, has a negative rating over 50%! Doesn't that tell you anything?
by ColoradoGuy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:49:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 1)

According to one solitary poll...conducted during the height of a spat of negative press.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:17:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Impact on Congress (none / 0)

We could lose the House and wind up with a 50-50 Senate with this.  

At this point, we should write off the presidency
and focus on Congress.  I'w wondering if all the gains we've made over the last 2-3 years will be wiped out.


by mikelow1885 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:41:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ptffffff. (none / 0)

You sound like a derivatives trader, not a committed democrat.


by edsdet on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

tells me you rely on rasmussen instead of more... (2.00 / 1)

reliable polls about obama.  scott's polls are not just outliers regarding obama's negatives, they are unique.  there is something weird that month after month he reports findings that no one else can substantiate.

but at least they comfort those among hillary's supporters that need it...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:59:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 1)

Just put your fingers in your ears and close your eyes.  That'll make it all better.


99% perspiration
by DaveOinSF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:26:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Clinton has wrought (none / 0)

Your world view is profoundly distorted.

Obama has brought millions to the polls; millions who are inspired by his vision of a better politics, and yes, his vision of "a more perfect union."  Obama has lifted the perceptions of the party and of the possibility of politics itself.

Hillary, who is a Democrat on policy but who clearly fits within the Republican mainstream in her view of political strategy and tactics, is the one who is dragging down the debate in the party and damaging the image of both Obama and herself.

Yhe absurdity of your claim would be laughable if the consequnces were not so dire.


by upper left on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (1.80 / 5)

Every person I've talked to for the past 2 weeks was like, "I can't believe Clinton knows this guy Obama who knows this guy Wright!"  Every person. And I talked to like a million people.

So she probably needed to distance herself. It's important for her "brand" that those millions of peopel that I talked to don't confuse her for Barack Obama. They look so similar!


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For 2 weeks she was asked by the.... (2.00 / 2)

press about what she thought about Wright.  Some might suggest (gasp!) that the press hounded her on it.

She decided to answer it.  Briefly and succinctly relative to her position.  When pressed by the press about her thoughts about Obama and Wright, she did not say a thing.  

Now she's accused of exacerbating the situation.  

She's damned if she does.  And damned if she doesn't.  

Make up your freaking minds.


by Shazone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:58:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For 2 weeks she was asked by the.... (none / 0)

What?

How is she "damned" if she doesn't answer the question? Was there really a clamor in the press for her to speak out on this important issue? Of course not.

In fact, I heard a few press folks compliment her for staying above it.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For 2 weeks she was asked by the.... (2.00 / 1)

Why did Obama push teh Wright/Clinton photo?


99% perspiration
by DaveOinSF on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you really believe they aren't? (none / 0)


by JimR on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's latest positives (none / 0)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/26/821438.aspx

New WSJ/NBC polling.


by mady on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's latest positives (none / 0)

Did you catch the line when the said they had over sampled AA voters?


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's latest positives (none / 0)

"...in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup."


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's latest positives (none / 0)

Yes, we all saw that, they oversampled on the WRIGHT QUESTION.  They did not over-represent--there is a difference


by kristannab on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 2)

Jerome-

Wright has obviously damaged Obama, but I don't know that it's fair to assume that Wright automatically damaged Clinton as well.

I think the extended campaign, however, has hurt both of them.  As they each tear each other to pieces, McCain goes unopposed.  As soon as Clinton won the popular votes in OH and TX, McCain rising in the polls was pretty much a guarantee, and was predicted by people like Chris Bowers before Wright even came out.

Wright may have indirectly hurt Clinton, but it's only because it basically puts a negative cloud on the entire Democratic campaign.  If Obama had effectively "sealed" the nomination, then yes, I think more people would come out defending him.  Instead, we get Obama supporters trying to support him, and Clinton supporters attempting to tear him apart with it, and thus Obama supporters going back to tear Clinton apart with something else, etc...  That's why both Clinton and Obama have declining poll numbers against McCain now.  


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:13 PM EST

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 1)

I think Jerome's point is that Obama's embrace of Wright as family, and Hillary's and the Democratic party's failure to distance itself from Wright, has damaged Democrats generally.

One of the more effective and unfair Republican tactics in 2002 and 2004 was to associate Democrats with remarks like those of Wright regarding 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. There are vanishingly few Democrats who hold the U.S. responsible for 9/11 or who thought we were not justified invading Afghanistan, but when we give a pass to people who do believe those things we reinforce the doubts some voters have about Democrats.


by souvarine on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

You can see my response below as well, but I just find this to be an extremely cynical and disheartening way to proceed with politics.  I know that this is a political site and part of the political discussion is around the "strategy" of winning an election... I just find the "strategy" of immediately throwing people under a bus because of a 30 second clip extremely cynical.  

We could probably create a movie about how crappy a person Thomas Jefferson really was because he owned slaves, slept with them, etc... does that mean that we should throw him under a bus despite his other accomplishments?  Are we not allowed to have a nuanced understanding of him?


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes, but... (none / 0)

obama DOES have to deal with all the issues that have come up out of this.  it may be disheartening that we have to deal with this, but we do.  ignoring it will not make it go away...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, but... (none / 0)

Didn't say he didn't have to deal with it... of course he does, and I think he is...

Just today he's been trying to talk a bit more about his church... While it's related to his "race" speech, I think this is the next step, unfortunately, talking about "religion."  And here's some stuff about what he said today:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/ 03/26/obama-talks-about-his-faith/


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:18:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's a valid point... (none / 0)

but perhaps a little one-sided.  regardless, this is something that barack has to deal with, head-on, and not ignore -- not just for himself, but to save the democratic coalition that includes african-americans.  the resentments that blacks have towards the democratic party have now been exposed, and there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.

fortunately, barack's national security agenda is far more progressive and forward-looking than any other candidate (and a huge reason why i supported him from the beginning) and he can make a strong case about the future of american national security policy in sharp contrast to wright's statements then...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton IS NOT tearing anyone... (2.00 / 1)

to pieces - stop that stupid talking point.  She has campaigned these past two weeks - during the media frenzy on Wright - giving substantive speeches that have been ignored by the press.

Now that the press is out of that cycle, Obama and Friends have come out with the most inanely stupid issues to try and replace Hillary in the stock and take the heat off Obama.

Get it straight.  She's talking substance.  She is NOT tearing anyone down.


by Shazone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton IS NOT tearing anyone... (none / 0)

Please...

I'm not even going to bother digging up all the evidence that disproves this, but even if I concede that she's been talking "policy" only, there's no question that there's a concerted effort by her CAMPAIGN to undermine both the primary process AND Obama by trying to make him look unelectable.

There's barely even any dissent about this any more.  Clinton's only remaining path to nomination is to win over the Super Delegates, and the only way she can do that is to make Obama look unelectable.


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has made himself unelectable. (none / 0)

Since you believe this BS....

"There's barely even any dissent about this any more.  Clinton's only remaining path to nomination is to win over the Super Delegates, and the only way she can do that is to make Obama look unelectable."

....there is no reason to have any dialogue with you.

Good luck in November if Obama is the nominee.  He will lose - and it will be because Hillary supporters will be telling you to all go take a flying leap.


by Shazone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:28:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has made himself unelectable. (none / 0)

"He will lose - and it will be because Hillary supporters will be telling you to all go take a flying leap".

So will you be feeling all snuggy and happy if your above statement comes true?


by Tunk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton IS NOT tearing anyone... (none / 0)

Actually, I should add one more thing...

I said Clinton SUPPORTERS are trying to tear him apart... and for that there can be absolutely no debate.


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton IS NOT tearing anyone... (none / 0)

You're right.  No debate - your word is law.


Yes, I am a Clintonista for Obama.
by Denny Crane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:33:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton IS NOT tearing anyone... (none / 0)

Please refer to, on any given day, the Rec List on MyDD.  Did I really even need to say that?


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton IS NOT tearing anyone... (none / 0)

Have you been to Dkos lately? Checked the rec list?
#1 on the Rec List at Dkos: "Hillary takes huge hit to favorability"
Of the other 9 or so on the list, half of them are about Hillary, and trust me when I say they're probably not complimentary.
Well, one pro-Hillary diarist has made it to the rec list: Rena RF (brave woman):" It's Time to Give Hillary Clinton a Break".
900 + comments, and I'll be they're not nice comments.
by skohayes on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

According to you, Clinton is at fault.. (none / 0)

for "starting" this, and all you Obama supporters only responded in defense of your candidate.

A BIG, LOUD HA!!!!!!

We Clinton supporters certainly see things differently...and the more you sling that crap the more we know we're right.


by Shazone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: According to you, Clinton is at fault.. (none / 0)

I never said ANYTHING about anyone "starting" anything... just that the extended campaign is hurting both candidates.

What "crap" am I exactly "slinging" here?


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:26:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You said.... (none / 0)

"Instead, we get Obama supporters trying to support him, and Clinton supporters attempting to tear him apart with it, and thus Obama supporters going back to tear Clinton apart with something else, etc.."

In other words, poor innocent Obama supporters were just doing nice things for their candidate when those nasty vicious Hillary supporters started to tear him apart...so we poor innocent Obama supporters just had to try and tear her apart...It's all her fault.  Wahhhhhhhh


by Shazone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:33:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You said.... (none / 0)

Wtf... Try and read into it all you want, I said Obama supporters were trying to support him, and Hillary supporters were trying to rip him apart for it, and it causes a cycle... a cycle, btw, which started before Wright and which I don't claim to say who "started" it, because it's irrelevant.  What IS relevant in my argument that the continued campaign has hurt BOTH candidates.  If you want to disagree with that, then fine... but don't stick words into my mouth.


by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:44:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wait...what? (2.00 / 2)

Hillary has tanked in Missouri because of Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

Really?

That seems like a pretty far logical stretch.

I also enjoy the typical Clintonian response that when someone is causing you trouble, no matter the relationship, the history or what good they have done, you immediately throw them under the bus.  For political expediency sake.

I completely believe Hillary when she said she would have left that church.  She would thrown anything under the bus if Mark Penn told her it would help politically.


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:39 PM EST

Re: Wait...what? (none / 0)

She'd never throw anything under the bus for political reasons. For example: she supported the war because she believed in the neocon dream of the middle east, not because she wanted to look tough.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (1.85 / 7)

No, Obama has tanked in Missouri because of Wright and its hurting Clinton and the Dem Party in general.

Some coattails Barry has.


by Betsy McCall on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (2.00 / 3)

I especially enjoy that you Clinton supporters have started calling him "Barry" as if its some kind of attack or something.

Do you care to explain the logic of your conclusion to me?

How is Rev. Wright "hurting the Democratic party in general"?


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (1.75 / 4)

How could you NOT think Wright is hurting the party? Can't you read the numbers? Missouri was supposed to be a swing state and one of the red states Obama was going to turn blue. He's lost 15 friggin points in exactly the time period since Wright's videos came out!
by ColoradoGuy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (none / 0)

Clinton has spent the last month tearing apart Obama while McCain has gotten a free ride.

But more generically, Rasmussen is a Republican pollster and I don't fly off the frickin' handle every time a Republican pollster comes out with something I don't like.


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:57:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (none / 0)

Because Wright has been the only thing to happen since then?

That's idiotic.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm an Indy who leans Dem. (none / 0)

It just reconfirms to me my decision to not register that way.


by JimR on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some pastor in a black church (none / 0)

is the reason you are not a Democrat?

Wow.


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:01:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's on the list. (2.00 / 1)


by JimR on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (none / 0)

I posted this on the PA thread but it belongs here.  This kind of thing hurts the party more than Wright does:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/03/26/clinton_donors_warn_pelosi_o n.html

"Clinton Donors Warn Pelosi on Superdelegates"

Washington Post today.

People are starting to have a very bad feeling about her ethics and the reasons she is in this race. I started out thinking it was about her wanting to prove to the country that she could "do good" govern effectively, put some of her life's goals into action.  I do not believe that any longer, I think this is simply about her.


by mady on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:00:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. It doesn't. (none / 0)


by JimR on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (2.00 / 2)

LOL!  Because the donors want the party to adhere to rules they had in place since McGovern?

LOL!  But I thought it was all about the ROOOOLZ


by Sensible on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (2.00 / 1)

A group of big donors to the DCCC that include Hillary supporters write a letter to Pelosi and that's damaging the party?
Can you explain that please?
by skohayes on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:43:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (2.00 / 2)

I can just forsee the 527 ad by the republicans in the fall now if Obama is the nominee, and it necessarily will not be an ad with Rev. Wright in it.  The strongest ad IMO will be Obama expressing praise for his mentor and pastor at a ceremony somewhere that I just watched recently on youtube.  You only had to look and hear Obama describe his pastor that revealed the true feelings that he has for his mentor and pastor.


by mcctx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (2.00 / 2)

Also, I live in Texas and Rev. Wright is all over the local media again in the state today because he has cancelled all of his appearances in Texas  for later this week for "security reasons".  The Wright story would have come out sooner or later even if Clinton had lost and dropped out already.

We are doomed in November!

Gore/Edwards 08 anybody?


by mcctx on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (2.00 / 2)

I'm in  Texas, too.  All those  Independents  and  Reagan Democrats  Obama  claimed  he could  bring over  to the party in  states  like  Texas?  

After  Wright  and   Democratic  Party's  ignoring   his  racism  (thereby  accepting it),  those  Indies  and   Reagan Dems  have  gone  to  McCain.    And  a  whole lot  of  the young   college  kids   are  now    disillusioned  and offended   at  the  REAL  Obama  vs. what  they  THOUGHT  he  was,   they're  gone  too,   and perhaps  disillusioned  forever.    

And  here's  an interesting number :   58%  of   AFrican  Americans  thought  the  Wright  tapes  were   racially  divisive  and  offensive,  too.  

Lotta  Dem   regret  and  buyer's  remorse  about Obama  votes  given in previous  primaries/caucuses.      

And  it  was  Wright,  and  the  Dem Party  not  strongly  rejecting him for  fear  of   offending  the   AA  vote,    that  will  lose   the  swing  states  like  Missouri,  Virginia,  Michigan,   Florida.    

Hide  and watch.


by auntmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:25:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (none / 0)

Here in Texas, at least where I live, people (who are most definitely not Democrats) are very supportive of Obama and don't really think much of the furor. I certainly haven't seen any dropoff in support among independents or those pesky college kids.

Here are some more interesting numbers:
22% of Democrats are more likely to vote for Obama since Wright, 8% less likely, 68% no difference. 11% of Independents more likely, 13% less likely, 75% no difference. Yes, Republicans don't like it; a whopping 25% are less likely to vote for Obama.

See a lot of buyer's remorse there? Because I don't.

I also don't see buyer's remorse in Obama's growing lead vs. Clinton in primary polling, pulling closer in PA, or jumping out to a huge lead in NC. If that's buyer's remorse, one can only assume they're remorseful they didn't jump to Obama sooner.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wait...what? (none / 0)

You might as well write off Clinton, too, then, because the sniper story will be used by 527s to paint her as a liar just as much.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What in the world are you talking about? (none / 0)

Or more specifically, what kool-aid have you been guzzling?

"I also enjoy the typical Clintonian response that when someone is causing you trouble, no matter the relationship, the history or what good they have done, you immediately throw them under the bus.  For political expediency sake."


by Shazone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm talking about (none / 0)

Yesterday Clinton and today Jerome called on Obama to throw Wright under the bus.  For political expediency.

But he won't.  Because a twenty-year relationship means something to him.  But I fully believe Hillary when she says she would have, because it fits her view of politics as you are what your pollster tells you to be.


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm talking about (2.00 / 1)

Clinton called on Obama to throw Wright under the bus?  What koolaid have you been smoking! ;-).

My, my, my when the orange is your only news source your reality gets distorted, doesn't it?


by Sensible on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm talking about (none / 0)

thats a rather odd attack since basically every news organization in the country covered Hillary's comments from yesterday.  


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:23:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where did Clinton tell Obama.... (2.00 / 1)

to throw Wright under the bus?

She was asked (miltiple times over a two week period) what she would have done and she said she would have changed churches.


by Shazone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm talking about (2.00 / 1)

Well,  there you go, bawbie.  

If  Obama  will not  throw  Wright under  the bus,  then   middle  America   in states    like  Missouri  and  Arkansas   and  Michigan  and  Pennsylvania   get  to  JUDGE  him for  that  choice,   and  withdraw  their  votes  of  support.  

You  and    SOME  people  may  admire  that.  

But  it  won't  win in November.  

Obama  DAMAGES  the  Democratic Party's  chances,  and  the  polls  are  now  proving  that.


by auntmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm talking about (none / 0)

Actually, as covered on Olbermann tonight, the polls the last two weeks have been much more damaging to Clinton than Obama.


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 4)

That 17% lead Dukakis had over Bush in June 1988 also showed that the race was over.


by snaktime on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:45 PM EST

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

Jerome, of all people, is no doubt aware of how poorly correlated March general election polls are with actual general elections.  It's such transparent spin.


by CA Pol Junkie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

gmab, read the last sentence. Don't deny that this has happened.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

Unless you mean for your last sentence to invalidate your entire post, the point stands.  Conservatives will always try to smear the Democrat (whichever one we nominate) with something.  General election polls are a ridiculous measure at this point - the polls would reverse if a Democrat rescued a kitten from a tree.  Starting with the conventions the polls will be more meaningful as voters pay more attention.

Democrats shouldn't be validating stupid attacks (or making such attacks for that matter) by cowering in fear that our denunciation isn't strong enough.  This stuff doesn't hurt the GOP (witness Hagee) because they don't cave and look weak - we could learn a thing or two about that.


by CA Pol Junkie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:30:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome doesn't care much for Blacks (none / 0)

It's clear by his comments.  He is insulting the black church.  One of the black blogs have been keeping track of how many blacks have been "censored" on MyDD.  None of this "spin" is surprising.


by kristannab on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome doesn't care much for Blacks (none / 0)

That  is  NONSENSE,  kristan.  

You  Obamanauts  are  just  thin-skinned  crybabies.  

Obama's  not  running  for high school  prom king.  

This  is  the  BIG  leagues.  

And if  his  loyalty to  Wright   COSTS  the  Democratic  Party   in  November,   the  rest of  us  have  every right  to    be  aware  of  that  and  act  accordingly.  

Jerome    has    ALWAYS  been fair  and logical  in  his  analysis,  just  like  BTD  at  TalkLeft.  

You  owe  him  an  apology.    Right  NOW.


by auntmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:32:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome doesn't care much for Blacks (none / 0)

Fair? Please. In the words of my late grandmother, when I get my 40 acres then I will apologize.


by kristannab on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

Yeah, but this is the liberal blogosphere, where the Democrats arealways doomed.


by spirowasright on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're just trying to keep the story alive (1.33 / 3)

Sorry. Can't spare you.

This is a devastating week for your girl. She lied about facing SNIPER FIRE. That's probably one of the most despicable lies I can think of - especially when we have troops in battle right now.

Anything to take the focus off of this travesty.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:30:35 PM EST

I can think of many more (none / 0)

"despicable lies," such as Bush saying there were WMDs in iraq or Cheney arguing Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were connected.

Your comment shows why McCain is doing so well.


by TomP on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can think of many more (none / 0)

Some had the judgement not to believe Bush & Cheney.

See, I can play that game, too.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can think of many more (none / 0)

Did you   believe  Obama  when he  said  he  never  heard  anything   Wright  said,  but then, when  caught  with videos,   ADMITTED  in his  race  speech  that  he  actually  HAD?  

You  mean,  like  THOSE lies?


by auntmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't explain this again (none / 0)

If you still can't get the difference between hearing SOME things and THOSE things, you're not even trying.  The race speech never said that he'd heard THOSE things.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I did not believe them. (none / 0)

As for Obama's speech, that's nice, but he voted just like Clinton once he as elected.  Both were bad.

Obama voted agaisnt Kerry-Feingold.


by TomP on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:42:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're just trying to keep the story alive (2.00 / 1)

Hahahahaha!

This comment might win the faux outrage trophy FOR THE YEAR.  "One of the most despicable lies I can think of."  Man, I'll remember this.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're just trying to keep the story alive (none / 0)

As an Obama supporter: I think calling them the "most despicable lies I can think of" is more than a bit of hyperbole.

Yes, they're in very poor taste when we have troops in battle. But her lies, in this particular case, aren't getting people killed or ruining lives, and those would be far more despicable lies.

What they are is mind-bogglingly stupid lies. One does not lie about something that was covered by the media, for which there's video and photos, whether it was 10 years ago or not. Not in this day and age.

And her responses to them have been even more stupid. "I misspoke because I was tired". Great way to promote your "ready at 3AM argument" -- call me at 3AM and I'll lie to you. "I took her stuff and left". Quite a lot of respect that shows. "Really, I'd heard that there was sniper fire." So you allowed your daughter to leave the plane? Stood out on the tarmac with a 9-year-old for a prolonged period of time?

Yes, this doesn't make a big difference to her claims of experience, it didn't get people killed or anything of the sort. But it's just plain stupid, and it says that she thinks we're very, very gullible. And her responses to it say that she thinks we're very stupid, too.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:56:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're just trying to keep the story alive (none / 0)

LOL!  Keep trying to make that moral equivalency.  Not even BHO's media friends find much to attack on this issue.

Even is she LIED about sniper fire, did she do it for 20 years all the while damning America?

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.


by Si Ella Puede on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 1)

There was no gun to her head, she should have done the decent thing and said, "No comment." or "The American people are aware of Wright's comments and will make their own decisions."

Even her own pastor supports Wright,

"
"When the Jeremiah Wright sound bites appeared this week, I wish white Americans could have said, "Tell us more, Dr. Wright. Explain to us what you are trying to tell us. Let's see the videos of the entire sermon. We want to understand your perspective. We are going to try to not be defensive. We may end up disagreeing with you, but we are going to take some time to try to understand what you have to say." What a wonderful thing that would have been for white America to do.

But instead we became afraid. We can choose between fear and great joy, because in America today, in the place of our deepest oppression, we are experiencing the shock of resurrection. "

As for your polls,

"http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol  itics/blog/2008/03/obamaclinton_ti e_in_n ew_poll_p.html

" Obama is the choice of 47 percent, Clinton 46, a neglible difference in a poll like this, a March 20-22 survey by the Gallup Poll. The survey confirms Gallup's finding just before Easter that "Clinton's recent lead in the race -- apparently fueled by controversy dogging the Obama campaign over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- had evaporated,'' Gallup's Lydia Saad reports.

For all the controversy that Obama has faced during the past few weeks surrounding the "incendiary'' remarks of his longtime and now-retired pastor, remarks which the candidate has disavowed, the last two accountings of the Gallup daily tracker suggest that the senator from Illinois has placed that behind him. Clinton had gained a detectable polling advantage over Obama during the height of the controversy.

Gallup's general election polling, matching presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain against Obama and Clinton, continue to show McCain holding a slight advantage.

The Arizona senator holds a three percentage point lead over Obama in the preferences of registered voters, and a two-point lead over Clinton, again, within the margin of error.""

-----
But anyway Jerome, good luck trying to flog this story again since Hillary is drowning in her lies, nice distraction attempt.


by furiousxgeorge on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:31:19 PM EST

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 1)

Anyway, the subject at hand.  Jerome is correct that Hillary was distancing herself from Obama/Wright, not in an attempt to change Democratic minds, but with an eye towards the GE should she happen to get there.  Both Dem candidates are clearly bulletproof now as far as their supporters go - minds are made up at this point and not changing one bit, no matter what uncomfortable revelations emerge.  Independents, where general elections are actually won, are another matter entirely...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:39:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is BS (2.00 / 1)

Nothing but spin, smoke and mirrors to cover for attacking Obama by trying to ressurect the dead Wright story.  No one associates her with Wright, most blame her (not saying it's true or not) for launching the Wright attacks in the first place.


by furiousxgeorge on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is BS (none / 0)

Again:  what Jerome is saying is that he thinks that all Democrats suffer because non-Democrats don't think we are sufficiently denouncing Wright.  He postulates that this is more about us a party, rather than about either of the candidates, but you go on ahead with your thing anyway...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:52:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Equally stupid (2.00 / 1)

Most people seem to not consider Obama and Clinton to be in the same party anymore, what with all the crossover voting going on.

They are bitter rivals, and a more interesting fight than the general election, if you ask me.

The Wright matter was settled in most people's minds, by the stabilization of Obama's numbers.  if it's not affecting him, then it's certainly not affecting Clinton.

She's not getting to the general anyway without destroying Obama somehow, so at this point, it's just a smear and a hope, and any time spent "looking towards the general" is not only uncharacteristic (she's never done anything but look beyond beating Obama since Super Tuesday) but useless.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is BS (2.00 / 1)

NOPE.  

Polls  clearly  show  that  those   Independents  and   Reagan  Democrats  are now  LOST  to  Barak  Obama.    

They're  GONE,   because of  Wright  and Obama  defending  him.    


by auntmo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is BS (none / 0)

Wishing it doesn't make it so.  Record number of republicans are switching in PA to vote for Obama.  The only people who stil think Wright is a big deal are delusional Hillary fans.


by furiousxgeorge on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is BS (none / 0)

What polls?

The best poll taken on this issue shows that Obama's lost 2% of Independents. It also shows that more Democrats are likely to vote for him than before Wright.

Try again.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 1)

context?

you CAN'T take Wright saying that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and allowed the murder of thousnds of american boys or that the US gov't created HIV in order to kill blacks in the millions in a worldwide genocide OUT of context.

its impossible.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:56:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

It's actually pretty easy to take these out of their context.

FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and allowed the murder of thousnds of american boys

the US gov't created HIV in order to kill blacks in the millions in a worldwide genocide

See, totally removed the context you said them in.


by furiousxgeorge on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

Whether FDR knew or did not know about Pearl Harbor has been a matter of debate among historians for decades. There is no consensus on it. You may find it controversial, but this is not a settled matter of history. Many quite reasonable, mainstream historians believe otherwise than you do.

I agree with you on the substance of Wright's comments about HIV. They're absurd. HIV is a naturally occurring virus and has been traced to well before humans understood enough about DNA to have had a chance of engineering one like this.

However, the U.S. Government did, knowingly, infect African American men with syphilis, at a time in history where there were no safe and efficacious treatments for it, and denying many of those studied even the limited treatments available. This lead to horrible deaths for many. Perhaps Wright is conflating the two? Or perhaps he's simply willing to believe an otherwise absurd conspiracy theory because something else that sounds like an absurd conspiracy theory actually happened?

Does that perhaps put them in slightly more context for you? Or is it still impossible to put either in context?


by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

What you said and why is this information never shown by the MSM? I also read that the 'chickens coming home to roost' was actually a quote from a Reagan appointed Ambassador Peck made on CNN or Fox-why is that clip never aired? I also think that Democrats are treated so unfairly. McCain's senior moment is treated like a gaffe. Honestly, I am terrified of a President McCain. I don't hate him, but he is too old. The thought of him having control of the "button" is chilling. (I am a nurse working with seniors and I love them, but not as POTUS)


by Roberta on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

What you said and why is this information never shown by the MSM? I also read that the 'chickens coming home to roost' was actually a quote from a Reagan appointed Ambassador Peck made on CNN or Fox-why is that clip never aired? I also think that Democrats are treated so unfairly. McCain's senior moment is treated like a gaffe. Honestly, I am terrified of a President McCain. I don't hate him, but he is too old. The thought of him having control of the "button" is chilling. (I am a nurse working with seniors and I love them, but not as POTUS)


by Roberta on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

How many times do that bots need to be told. that pastor is not, nor was he ever, Hillary Clinton's pastor. PERIOD.

he is simply the current pastor of a church Bill and Hillary attended while in the whitehouse.


by americanincanada on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

sure Obama rules right

he gives a cice speech

she says nothing over and over

he puts out the photo

and she should still say noting when she's hurt in polls cause GOP is riding this into the DEMS HATE AMERICA camp like they did with Kerry'

hell no

the race isnt over and Obama cant win a GE run against McCranky


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 5)

Well said Jerome, This Wright issue will be the stuff of swiftboat ads towards Nov.  We might not like it, but thats the way it is.


by owllwoman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:31:35 PM EST

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 4)

Yes. It will.

But Hillary will have her own demons as well.

Every candidate has negatives. As democrats, we can't run into the woods like little pansies every time the GOP gets ready to attack us. We need smart candidates. We need likable candidates. We need candidates who are supported from the bottom up.

Get ahold of yourself.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes she will have negatives... (none / 0)

but the Wright stuff, heh, could lead to a loss of of more blue states like NJ and MA. Could Obama's political career survived if he had a loss like Mondale proportions?


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 3)

You do realize that they will create "swiftboat ads" regardless of the candidate or the issue, right?


by bawbie on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

But an ad screaming G@d Damm America makes a voter pay attention.  


by owllwoman on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:43:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (2.00 / 2)

But a juxtaposition of McCain in a POW camp next to Hillary's sniper fire whopper won't?  Come on, dude, just be honest with yourself.


by zadura on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

I still don't see the big deal. Is there anybody out there who hasn't said "God damn America" or words to that effect? Liberals say it when the topic of illegal wiretapping comes up, conservatives say it when the topic switches to Roe v. Wade, and everybody I know says it around April 15th.

Rev. Wright apparently says it on the topic of racism, which I guess is as good a reason as any.

I don't think Republicans are going to get much mileage out of it. One of my Republican friends was babbling nonsense about Rev. Wright the other day, and all I had to do was roll my eyes and say, "Who are you? Hillary Clinton?" That shut him right up.*

(*Dramatization, may not have actually happened.)


by mazement on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Wright has wrought (none / 0)

lol, well indeed but it won't be as daunting since its already been played in the primary so much and BO addressed it by a now legendary speech BO will be just fine in the General

Clinton's "experience" lies though? now that will be stuff of serious swiftboat ads should the nomination be stolen for her by some superdelegates. IT will be SCHIP, NAFTA, BOSNIA and probably more will be uncovered. HRC has made "experience" the cornerstone of her campaign, the republican's will surely have fun with that.

As for Jerome, "Wright has damaged HRC too"? LMAO that is rich. Gosh what happened to you? where did all your logic go?


by jax8 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No doubt. But not nearly as bad as the ads (none / 0)

on Hillary's "sniper fire" comments would have been if she had been the nominee.  

Heck, those are so easy even McCain would have made effective use of them, with joking comparisons of his own military record with a "but don't forget Hillary faced sniper fire in Bosnia."  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No doubt. But not nearly as bad as the ads (none / 0)

Most people see through the sniper brouhaha. It has not had any more effect on Clinton's numbers than the years of Republican smears that preceded it.

Obama supporters sure do seem fired up by it, but then they are suckers for most Republican smears.


by souvarine on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll be watching (none / 0)

The polls, oh, they should be interesting very shortly.  


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, her favorables dropped to 37% (none / 0)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/26/821438.aspx

I'm not fired up by it, I'm disappointed but I'd still support her if she ever became the nominee.

Also, I find your claim that its Obama supporters who are "suckers for Republican smears" surprising.  Lately, the pro-Hillary diaries---which never seem to make a positive case, but just the case against Obama---cite a mixture of Newsmax, Drudge Report, the Washington Times, etc etc.  


John McCain: Healthcare for Kids? In America? No way
by bosdcla14 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:06:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, her favorables dropped to 37% (none / 0)

They admitted oversampling the AA vote - bogus numbers and a bogus poll.


by anya109 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um, her favorables dropped to 37% (2.00 / 0)

they oversampled black voters IN ADDITION to the general sample that produced hillary's decline in favorables: