PA, Obama, Casey, and buses

Obama moves his IA field director, who also ran Ohio for Obama, into Pennsylvania, but someone's skeptical:
Even before Tewes's appointment was confirmed today, campaign officials had hoped that the extended bus tour -- a commitment Obama's campaign has not made to an individual state since Iowa -- and a sizeable advertising buy over the past week would help to quell internal skeptics.


"My guess is it's a smokescreen, I don't think it changes the strategy at all," said one Obama fundraiser in Pennsylvania. "I think a lot of people were catching wind of the fact that they were writing off Pennsylvania."

They wouldn't write it off though, not with having a internal prediction of losing by just 5 percent, and finally getting a big endorsement in the state by Bob Casey:
Casey is a first-term senator and the son of a popular former governor of the state. His support could help Obama make inroads among Catholic voters. Catholics constitute more than 30 percent of the state. Casey is scheduled to join Obama in Pittsburgh Friday and campaign with him as Obama travels by across Pennsylvania by bus.
Speaking of buses, Obama's still trying to defend Wright, but has reved up the bus engine a bit:
"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.
When did Wright ever acknowledge he'd been divisive- did I miss that happening? Also, the problem for Obama is that the issue has become not just about Wright, but this church in general, that Obama belongs too:
Still, the Wright episode is not behind Obama and remains a problem for the general election, if Obama is the nominee. NBC reported Thursday that bulletins published by Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side included "anti-Israel" material and a piece calling Italians "garlic noses" and references to "White supremacists" who "run the U.S. government."


Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, "I think comments like that have no place in the public discourse."

I just haven't seen any numbers though, aside from polls done right after this broke, that Obama suffers from his relationship to Wright in the Democratic primary. There have been many statewide polls though, which show a continued slide against McCain, which is probably why Obama continues to try and figure out a way to end the story. It'll be interesting to hear Casey's responses to the reporters over Wright & Obama's church, while the tour happens in PA, and if that helps Obama in the state, which remains a poll average of a 16 percent spread favoring Clinton.



Display:


Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

This is Casey's way of doing two things

1- Sticking it to the Clintons for denying his father the 1992 speaking slot because he and Daddy are anti-choice and Bill Clinton decided you know as Democrats we are the pro-choice party

2- Being as relevant as Ed Rendell who absolutlely destroyed him in the 2002 Democratic primary for Governor


by rossinatl on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:44:17 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Oh right, I'd forgotten about '92, good call.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:46:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did Obama help Wright? (none / 0)

Purchase that HUGE house that Wright is going to retire into?

Does anyone know?


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How Did Clintons Purchase Homes (none / 0)

When they were millions of dollars in debt?

Let's see those tax returns.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How Did Clintons Purchase Homes (none / 0)

Nice post....u are so right!


by gabbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:21:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

So
Now mydd and other Clinton supporters are bashing ANOTHER prominent democratic leader for not supporting Sen Clinton?

What is WITH you guys.  Breaking blue?  Na...all you want is it to break for YOU


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

And I am fed up with this blog's use of the old McCarthy tactic of guilt by association.

You ought to know better, Jerome.

I'll visit and read your used-to-be excellent, thoughtful posts when the nominee is chosen, perhaps in June.


by hawkseye on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

this is what happens when all the NO QUARTER blog 5-year olds start sending Jerome emails about what a wonderful job he's doing.   the professionalism and balance is disappearing.  i was a lurker here and there before i became angered by the constant Obama bashing all the time always.  and now they're coming here.  i am a progressive who was called a troll and an ENEMY at No Quarter because i caucused for Obama in WA State.  it's disgusting..... these are the 22%-ers who will NOT vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  they are so hate-filled it is indescribable.


by funknjunk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

Nice...my sentiments exactly!  Thanks for your post!


by gabbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "good call"?!?!?!? (none / 0)

ah another dkos freeper, try to leave the Flush talking points back in that swamp please.


by zerosumgame on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has already won (none / 0)

Reading some of the diaries here is like visiting another planet. There just seems to be no connection to reality.

There is a measure of how the voters feel regarging Obama and Clinton. It is called polling.

NBC/WSJ has Hillary with a net negative perception among voters.

Gallup Daily tracking has her behind by 8 points.

We are just walking through the motions for about another 3 weeks.  


by commoncents on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey's father refused to endorse the nominee (none / 0)

So why should he have gotten a speaking spot in 1992?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:47:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 0)

To be fair, and I say this as a fan of Casey, his dad didn't get a speaking slot because he refused to endorse the ticket.  Which, I would add, is 100% reasonable irrespective of one's views on choice.  


by HSTruman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, people do get that story wrong all the time.

However, I bet that it will be retold and retold.  It plays to the perception that the Clintons can play quite rough, even against people in their own party.  If PA voters like that, it helps Clinton. If not, it hurts her.  

But it also reveals the split between different big players in the PA political establishment. And Casey and his dad are more popular than Rendell.  Look for Casey to cut some ads for him.

These parts of Casey's reasons to support Obama were all pretty interesting and will be part of his political argument:

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_upd ate/20080328_Bob_Casey_to_endorse_Obama_ _join_bus_tour.html
 "Casey sees Obama as an "underdog" in the campaign who sacrificed at the beginning of his career to be a community organizer "in the shadows of the closed steel mills in Chicago," said a source close to Casey who is familiar with the endorsement decision but was not authorized to speak publicly about it.

The source, reached by The Inquirer yesterday, said that Casey was also impressed with how Obama had stood up to the pressures of the campaign, including recent attacks over the racially incendiary remarks of his former pastor.

Casey's decision was also personal, motivated in part by the enthusiasm his four daughters - Elyse, Caroline, Julia and Marena - have expressed for Obama, the source said. "He thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

mn, you folks will just say ANYTHING! (2.00 / 1)

Casey and his dad are more popular than Rendell?

that is soooooo nuts.

i worked pa in 92 and  06.

in 92, the Casey - Clinton blood fued began.

jr's a senator only because of the anti- santorum fever.

renddell totally crushd him when they ran against each other.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: mn, you folks will just say ANYTHING! (none / 0)

Casey, despite being a terrible campaigner consistently breaks statewide records in terms of votes. He, and his late father, are immensely popular here (for reasons I admit, I don't grasp.)


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY! (2.00 / 0)

Great news for Hillary! With Casey on board, the expectation game will play in Hillary's favor. Instead of expecting Hillary to win by 20, they may expect her to win by only 5 percent, or maybe less. That way, she can exceed expectations and sow that she has the momentum and convince the Automatic Delegates (you know the Superdelegates) to ignore the elected delegate count and the popular vote count, and give Hillary the nomination that she uniquely deserves, because she is more experienced (you know, older) than that scary guy.

/snark

!
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:33:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is leading nationally, but only by a razor (none / 0)

thin margin..

I don't think ANYONE expects her to win big, but its essential that she be the Democratic nominee because a LOT of Obama's support from GOP crossover voters will wither away once the nominee is picked, everybody knows that.


public option=not affordable for middle. It cant cover all affordably, google adverse selection for why
by architek on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no she is not (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/1254 3/9554


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:15:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ya kidding right??? (none / 0)

people are running around here saying it will be a 20% blow out.

Also she kinda needs at least 20% to start gaining enough delegates.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is leading nationally, but only by a r (none / 0)

No, Hillary is NOT leading nationally. Not in the latest Pew Poll, not in the daily Gallop poll (where Obama is pulling away). Not in the actual popular vote in actual elections. Not in the delegate count.
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Goal Posts Last Seen in Paraguay (NT) (none / 0)


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

At what does this become a religious test for office?

Can't belong to Trinity, because... well you know...

Can't be a Catholic, because... well you know...

Can't be Jewish, because... well you know...

Seems to me this is a slippery slope. I recognize that Jerome is only pointing out that there is a defacto religious test, but should we legitimize it?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:52:08 AM EST

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 3)

"At what does this become a religious test for office?"

The issue is not religion at all.

The issue is about hate speech - at what times did Obama witness it, what did he do about it, and what it his stand on it. Also, Wright clearly demonized Hillary Clinton and her husband in his sermons, while praising candidate Obama, a possible violation of the church's tax exempts status. Did Obama request this endorsement in any fashion? Obama did donate over $22,000.00 to Wright's church. Did he object to the possible violation? Voters deserve answers to these questions.

The religious institution where the hate speech and endorsement  occurred is immaterial.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:58:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"It's not the sex, it's the lying..." (none / 0)

NM


by zadura on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:06:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 2)

The ease in which you and others slander a church with tens of thousands of members, the biggest church in a denomination with over a million members, is just mind-blowing.

Obama has clearly answered what his stand on this is.  As for when and where he worshiped to the God he believes, that is none of your fucking business.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

"The ease in which you and others slander a church"

The church is immaterial, no one is slandering the church. It is the behavior of Jeremiah Wright and violations of the law and  bigoted hate speech that are the issue here.

No matter what church or other religious institution housed the events in question, they are still important issues for voters to question and get answers to. It is appropriate business for all voters when considering a candidate.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

Do you really think "church" refers to just the building?

No.  It refers to the faith community in a congregation, from the pastors down to all the parishioners.

Comments like this are slandering that church.

Trinity is obviously a bigoted church

That has basically become the de facto position of this blog, that Trinity is a racist bigoted hate-filled church.

And it is slander, against the church and everyone of it's congregates.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

These people would have thought MLK (none / 0)

was racist.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These people would have thought MLK (none / 0)

Only if he was the preacher for someone running against a Clinton.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

It would be like "OMG he said moderate whites and white clergy were worse than the KKK!!" "He's a racist!!!"


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:58:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

But that's not the problem.  "God damn America" is the problem.  Accusing the government of inventing AIDS to kill black people is the problem.  Saying that 9/11 is America's chickens coming home to roost is the problem.  Wright has some good points, but he also has some tinfoil-hat notions.

This isn't about Trinity and it's not about the religious denomination.  It's about the guy who Obama himself said was his mentor for twenty years, the guy who performed Obama's marriage ceremony and baptized his children, who gave the name to Obama's book, who.... You get the picture.

Added to the above is the fact that this controversy has shown Obama to be hypocritical.  I believe Obama is lying when he says that, had Wright not retired, Obama would be thinking about leaving the Trinity congregation.  Huh?  If he didn't do so over a 20-year period, even though he's admitted he knew Wright said controversial things, then he wasn't ever planning to do it anyway.  The reason Obama is saying these things now is that he is in a political bind.

I don't mind people acting like politicians, but I don't like hypocrisy.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

I suggest that you listen to Wright's sermon "The Audacity to Hope" It is brilliant, inspiring and  not racial in the least.

30+ years of a career cannot be reduced to soundbites. Please stop trying.

In fact, most of the youtube clips are taken out of context.


A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

You're not listening to ME.  I said the problem is that this is a way to lose the GE.  Sound bites are ALL the Rethugs will need or will use in their ads.

I'm not screaming about Wright at all.  He's entitled to his opinions and he's entitled to express them. I can agree with some of what he says.  He is entitled to some anger - gawd knows I'm angry about discrimination against myself. Obama is entitled to attend that church.  But if Obama wants to become president, then he's made some stupid choices relating to this pastor.  Like having a relationship with him in any way, shape or form.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hah. Too true. (none / 0)

I know it is a widely held fear especially amongst Hillary supporters that this issue will kill Obama in the election. I think that's jumping to conclusions. It remains to be seen whether or not that people who think this way are falling into a trap of fearing the Republican attack or wishful thinking/schadenfreude or correctly perceiving a genuine election killer.

One thing I have noticed in listening to Hillary supporters is a rush to dismiss Obama's speech or any poll numbers that support its efficacy. I don't think everyone has done that, and I wouldn't advocate concluding that he is out of the woods either. That said, it's just too early to really say.

I think early returns are positive, and we should have open minds but not so open that our brains fall out.


by tessellated on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I couldn't care less if racist ignorant (none / 0)

Americans hold this against Obama. If they do then they get what they deserve. If Democrats do then they get what they deserve as well and African-Americans should probably start a third party with actual liberals.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

"Do you really think "church" refers to just the building?"

Of course not, I consider the church the entire spiritual community connected with it. And the criticisms are of the behavior of Jeremiah Wright, which is bigoted and hateful and may violate federal law. And by extension, the criticisms are of a presidential candidate who participated in and donated to this pastor's ministry for 17 years. Not the church. Why don't you understand the difference? It is legitimate criticism and investigation, and should be pursued.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you really think (none / 0)

"God Damn America!" is a 'violation of the law' or 'bigoted hate speech'?

Are you really that delusional about the role the US has been playing in the last 60 years? About the extra-ordinary grief US government policies have caused at home and around the world? About the millions of people who have every right to be angry at the US government?

The idea of America, equality, liberty, and justice for all, is beloved around the world.

Nuking mid-sized cities to keep the Soviets off of Japan, napalm-bombing Vietnamese children, lynching black Americans about to vote, ....destroying Iraq, neglecting New Orleans: Not so.

America is a free country because it is NOT ILLEGAL to criticize its history or present.


"The way to win a Presidential race against the Republicans is to develop the class warfare issue..." Lee Atwater, Bush `88 campaign manager.
by aufklaerer on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:23:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

Of course its not illegal.  And most Clinton supporters probably agree.

But instead of being logical, they decide to march lock stock along with little green footballs, Rush, Hugh, PJ media, Fox news and the rest of the right wing noise machine.

Why?
Because for them, its now about their bruised egos and not about supporting the progressive movement.


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

"Of course its not illegal."

It is illegal for a tax exempt religious institution to endorse a political candidate. Reverend Wright viciously vilified Barack Obama's competitor, Hillary Clinton and her husband, and praised Barack Obama to his congregation, after Barack Obama donated $22,000.00 to this church last year. I heard the church will be investigated for this violation of federal law, and their tax exempt status may be threatened.

I question whether there was a quid pro quo involved in this transaction between Obama and the Reverend Wright.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

It's not illegal, nor should it be.

The point we are trying to make is that it is a surefire way to LOSE the presidency in 2008.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

I have yet to see the Clinton supporters explain how she overcomes her HUGE negatives to win the GE.
For crying out load she can't even win the popular vote of her own party.
Can't you see the legions of right wingers going on and on about her lie/misremembering/misspeak of Bosnia, or whitewater, or treatment of st. troopers in Arkansas, or her Irish peace process exaggeration, or lawsuits from donors, or pardons or health care failures and on and on and on and on and on.
Uhg.  
It would be DISASTER all of the progress we have made as party would be halted as we revert to the past.

Double blech


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)

A huge amount of the popular vote for Obama is NOT of our party, so right there you've lost me.

As for the other things you mention, they are either incorrect and/or pale compared to what will happen to Obama from the wingnuts.

Whitewater?  OMG so last decade.  Been there, done that, no one cares anymore, move on.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:23:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you really think (none / 0)


You seem to have one meme, Wright which is fair (if you stick to facts and not just right wing talking points) but I think the Big O has answered those questions quite well and from recent polling seems to have bounced back quite well.  
While you still haven't even begun to answer how she overcomes her HUGE negatives.  I don't think the electorate will dismiss them as easily as you do.  Especially after it all comes out again and again.  
Do you honestly believe that people just need to learn more about her?

What a mess.


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OMG (none / 0)

There is so much wrong with your analysis; where to start?

Obama's negatives, now that he is much better known than before, are as high as Hillary's.  This is what happens when one enters a national contest.

Wright is all?  Oh no, not at all.  Much will be made of the fact that the Big O kept admitting that Rezko fundraised 22K, no 50K, no 125K, no....  

Big O has answered questions well?  Oh yeah?  Now he's getting backed into one corner after another and is prevaricating.

Recent polling?  Bounced back?  Sure - among Democrats.  The Rethugs aren't going to be as kind as the Democrats.

RW talking points?  See above.

Facts?  What election is about facts?  Voters in the aggregate don't have a chance to know the facts, if they even care.  Which is sad, of course, because if all the facts were known and people voted on them, Hillary would win in a landslide.

Hillary's negatives?  Democrats love her and a lot of indies do, too.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:36:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OMG (none / 0)

Montague, as of today's Gallop poll, Democrats appear to love Obama about 8% more than they love Sen. Clinton, and I can assure you that Republicans hate Sen. Clinton a heck of a lot more and with significantly more bile, than Obama.

I can't understand all the rest of your post through all the spittle and bile.


by zadura on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

It  IS  my  "fucking"  business,  bawbie,  if  his  association   with   Obama   means  the  Democratic  Party  loses   Independents  and  Reagan  Democrats   in  the  fall.    

Damn  right  it  is.  

And  nobody  gives    a  rat's  patootie  whether  you  agree  or  not.  

Deal  with  that,  bawbie.  

Try  and   accept  that  your   use  of profanity  does  not  make  you  appear  very rational.  In  fact,  it makes you look WORRIED.  

I  DO hope  that in the new  rules  this  blog is   creating,   that posters like  you  splashing  obscenities  all over  the  place  will  be  deleted  or  banned.  

Jerome,   are you  listening?  


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

If there are rules on this blog against using profanity, please point me to them.

Anyway, I don't think you are being very civil or mature, throwing around stuff like this:

And  nobody  gives    a  rat's  patootie  whether  you  agree  or  not.  

Deal  with  that,  bawbie.  

And, please, this is the Democratic party.  If our principles and values mean anything there will be no religious test for office in our party.

What Obama thinks and feels about this, as eloquently laid out in his Philly speech, you can judge all you want.  But you CAN NOT disqualify him for office based on his church.

Not in the Democratic party I believe in.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like (none / 0)

the his use of space.

I think its the best way to prove ones point factually ;)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

Geez

I hope comments like yours are snark.  

Yikes


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

can not (none / 0)

defend yourself I see.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

I must concur with your point that it is indeed our business if it impacts whether we get a Democratic president or not.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

To characterize Rev Wright's statements as "hate speech" is simply ignorant. Rev. Wright is not a hateful man, and what he said can be so decribed only taken out of context and taken from the point of view of privileged white pundits. I find it hard to imagine that, after what's happened to the US in the past seven years, that Democratics can buy into the "conservative" meme that the United States has never done anything in her history deserving of condemnation.


by ER Doc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

How  about   Wright's   theology  that  the  white  church  is  the  Antichrist?

How you think  that's  gonna  go over  with  Independents  and  Reagan Democrats?    

And  frankly,   58%  of  AFrican  American voters  found  Rev.  Wright  to be  racially  divisive  and  deeply  offensive.  

Are  THEY  racists  too?    


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:47:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

how about (none / 0)

you go listen to the entire sermon, before you start making up stuff.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how about (none / 0)

"you go listen to the entire sermon, before you start making up stuff."

Anyone who doesn't think this is hate speech, please go read Jim Cone's work and get to understand more of what Wright bases his theology on.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If it wasn't hate speech (none / 0)

or "hate preach," the new term I've heard thrown around, then what was it?

How about the latest statements:


"The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans."

...

Wright continued, "From the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth (in a barn in a township that was under the Apartheid Roman government that said his daddy had to be in), up to and including the circumstances surrounding Jesus' death on a cross, a Roman cross, public lynching Italian style. ...

"He refused to be defined by others and Dr. Asa Hilliard also refused to be defined by others. The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp? Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL2008032 6a.html

And this isn't from years ago, it's from a few months ago in printed sources.

What else has this guy said and written?  Who else has he denigrated and insulted?

The double standards being applied in this Wright situation are astounding, and really offensive, IMHO.


by joanneleon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:56:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If it wasn't hate speech (none / 0)

Finally, a link to the actual statements!  Thanks, joanneleon.  This is getting out of hand.


by writtenwithoutwax on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

Please blockquote some of this "hate speech" to which you refer. Do your best to provide some context, if that's possible.


by bookish on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

Well Trinity is obviously a bigoted church whose preacher demeans white people and tells dispicable lies to his congregation about the 'USKKKofA'.

What do you see as the problem with being Jewish or Catholic, in your opinion?

Perhaps you can explain cause I don't see any.


by Caliman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

The Catholic church is awash is anti-gay and anti-women bigotry.

And that's not to mention the covering up of pedophiles.  

I know all Catholic churches are that way because I saw a thirty second internet clip of a it.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:05:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

Maybe (and I say that as a practicing Catholic).

But Clinton has the majority of Catholic support.


by cmugirl90 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 1)

That's true, but that was not the point of the poster. The poster pointed out that you can't hold a candidate responsible for the sins of her or his church.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

"The poster pointed out that you can't hold a candidate responsible for the sins of her or his church.'

Um, you do not care that Obama donated over $22,000.00 to this church last year, and then received a public endorsement during a sermon from the pastor, who also viciously demonized Hillary Clinton and her husband, his competition?

Talk to me, I was to understand you dismissal of this quid pro quo?


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:28:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

That should be "want to understand", not "was".

Sorry about typos, I'm very tired.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 2)

Let's say a candidate gives money to a church where there were religious leaders who were pedophiles and these activities were covered up.  Also the church is anti-gay and anti-choice and discriminates against women.  And church leaders want candidates from their religion to change their public policy positions.  How would you see that candidate?

You know, someone like John Kerry?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Anti Gay ???? (none / 0)

Where do you get this crap?


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti Gay ???? (none / 0)

You're trying to honestly claim the Catholic Church isn't anti-gay?  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti Gay ???? (none / 0)

I meant the stuff about Wright's church, which has been very gay friendly.


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

" How would you see that candidate?"

What in the world does that have to do with the issue of a quid pro quo of a candidate donating $22,000.00 last year to a church and then receiving a public endorsement from the pastor in a Sunday sermon, and having the pastor viciously trash his only competitor, Hillary Clinton, in front of an audience of voters they are clearly both courting? And then having the pastor sell this endorsement tape on the church website?

No one is able to answer my question rationally?


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

It's reasonable to hold a candidate responsible for the sins of the church, to the extent that it reflects poor judgement on the candidate's part.


by Montague on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First it is not so obvious (2.00 / 0)

that Trinity is a bigoted church. As for God damn America, have you considered what the prophets used to say about Israel for failure to live up to the word of God. How is that different from condemning America for failure to live up to its ideals.

I you seem to be referring to the to the HIV created by the government statements.

Are you aware of The "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male."?
Because if you were, this article from the WaPo citing a  Rand Corp. and Oregon State University study   wouldn't surprise you at all.

Nearly half of the 500 African Americans surveyed said that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is man-made. The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, appears in the Feb. 1 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
More than one-quarter said they believed that AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and 12 percent believed it was created and spread by the CIA.

A slight majority said they believe that a cure for AIDS is being withheld from the poor. Forty-four percent said people who take the new medicines for HIV are government guinea pigs, and 15 percent said AIDS is a form of genocide against black people.

Two more quotes of interest by  Na'im Akbar, a professor of psychology at Florida State University who specializes in African American behavior

"This is not a bunch of crazy people running around saying they're out to get us," Akbar said. The belief "comes from the reality of 300 years of slavery and 100 years of post-slavery exploitation."

Today, he said, African Americans are more likely to live in communities near pollution sources, such as freeways and oil refineries, and far from health care centers. "There are a lot of indicators that our lives are not valued," Akbar said.

This NY Times article from 1990, might also be of interest to you.

"Because of who's being devastated the most, and growing up in the U.S. and knowing the history of slavery and racism in this country," Mr. Brown said, "you can't be black and not feel that AIDS is some kind of experiment, some kind of plot to hit undesirable minority populations." Mr. Brown, 30 years old, virtually apologized for his belief, saying, "I hope I don't sound too radical, because I'm not."

"I don't want to believe that AIDS is some kind of Government plot," he said. Then, pausing, he added: "But I guess I do. I do believe it."

Not every AA feels this way, but significant numbers do.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:12:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First it is not so obvious (2.00 / 1)

Selective  posting, molly.  

58%  of  African Americans  in  the  Rasmussen poll    found  Rev  Wright  to  be  RACIALLY DIVISIVE   and  deeply  offensive.    

I'd  say  58%   speaks  VOLUMES  about  Rev. Wright   being  the  outlier  in  the  Black  church  community.  

Nice  try,  though.


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am not selectively positing anything (none / 0)

I am pointing out why some AA (including Wright) just might believe that conspiracy theory. The fact that 58% think Wright is divisive doesn't change the fact that significant numbers believe the conspiracy. Try to view this from a POV other than your own for a minute. It will give you a different perspective.

(for the record, because too many will jump to the wrong conclusion, I am not endorsing the government created aids theory).


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:46:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First it is not so obvious (2.00 / 1)

"Not every AA feels this way, but significant numbers do"

I work in health care, and am very familiar with Tuskeegee, where the natural course of syphilis was allowed to run it's course  for study instead of intervening with appropriate treatment after diagnosis. It was an ethical horror story, and is taught in medical schools as a prime example of extreme violation of medical ethics.

The reason so many people believe that AIDS is a man made tool of genocide is that these myths are being promulgated by demagogues like Reverend Wright, who are then responsible for so many AAs avoiding diagnosis and treatment.

There is also a high degree of homophobia in the AA community such that many people would prefer to blame the US government for infecting them rather than admit to same sex activities. Men who have sex with men (MSM) in the AA community have the highest rates of HIV infection of any group by far. The mixture of fear, homophobia, shame and the terror of being infected with an often deadly virus is a toxic mix that invites any means of distributing the responsibility.

It is a tremendous tragedy that is snowballing out of control in NYC and elsewhere, and irrational attributions of blame onto the US government and medical establishment interfere with taking effective action to stop this epidemic of HIV infections among black MSM. Safe sex, early diagnosis, protection of one's partners, and early institution of treatment  to delay onset of AIDS is the only hope, and raising suspicions of government and of health care providers as vectors of infection only impedes lifesaving prevention and care.

Reverend Wright is harming his community, not helping it, by increasing the hostility and distrust surrounding the medical communities' standing with the AA community.


by 07rescue on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 04:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reason people believe it, is not (none / 0)

because someone tells them it is true, its because its seems superficially plausible WHEN someone suggests that it is true. You insult large numbers when you infer that they are too weak minded to think for themselves. I don't know if any one has published a study of it, but I suspect AA are no more homophobic than white Americans. You paint with a large brush.

Why do people think these types of conspiracies are true? It may be self denial or it may be that their experience is our elected leaders lie. About Vietnam, about Watergate, about Iran-contra, about Iraq. The Tuskeegee story is true. Its also true that the our elected leaders sponsored experiments with LSD on unsuspecting participants, and its true they sponsored experiments to wipe out memory with shock techniques. Its also true that we participated in cockamamie plots to kill Castro. Our eleced leaders have little regard for life, their hubris is breathtaking. Mans inhumanity to man is well documented. All of this background gives the Aids conspiracy theory has a thin veneer of plausibility.

I don't believe the Aids conspiracy theory, but I understand why some people might.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:59:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 5)

As a jew, and coming from an Orthodox (now 'Conservadox') family, I could point out how women are kept in special clothes designed to force modesty (to the point of wearing wigs), how they can't even shake men's hands and are offered limited educational opportunities.

Joe Lieberman had to defend some of this, and even offered that he stopped saying the prayer that, losely translated, thanks God for making me (or whomever else says the prayer) Jewish over any non-chosen creed.

Oh, and there's that whole genital mutilation thing.

See! You can distill any faith into pure stupid if you pick and choose!

Jerome, you are better than this last couple months of posts. You're pushing a story of decreasing relevance, ignoring stories of importance all for... what exactly?

Both Obama and Clinton offered fascinating economic proposals this week. McCain offered a pathetic one. You could go there and edjumacate us with all manner of your strong political knowledge.

Wright is one pastor at a church with hundreds of members. Thousands of sermens by several pastors have gone by since Obama joined, likely hundreds of newsletters. You can pick and choose to feign outrage...

...after all it is your blog...

...but that's not why we come here. Or stay here.

We being not "the choir" to whom you preach. Luckily, like Trinity, you may be the main voice here, but you're not the only voice. This place is richer than a couple posts, just like I'd assume Trinity is richer than a couple YouTube clips.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:16:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

Thank you for that very eloquent post.  As a member of another United Methodist Church in San Francisco with another very politically active pastor, Cecil Williams, I can tell you that there are often very fiery sermons.  

We also provide 750,000 meals to homeless Americans, provide health services, housing and shelter to battered women , provide job training and education to the needy, and a ton of other services.

You could easily find 30 seconds of Youtube clips of Rev. Williams or someone else making inflammatory comments.  You might also find 30 years of sermons of love, compassion, personal involvement and humility.

We are devaluing our identity as the reality based community and demeaning our heritage as the compassionate party when we choose to ascribe a few comments from a candidate's pastor to one of our candidates.  Hopefully, this is but a small stain on our otherwise noble Party.


by zadura on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (none / 0)

And thank you -- it's an important point I wish I heard more often. All this talk about "toughening Obama up" or "this is just what the GOP would do..." ... well, we aren't the GOP. We're the reality party, the party that looks beyond bromides or wedge issues, and is willing to see and say hard things and make hard decisions because that's what the country needs and deserves.

Good politics or bad politics, the Wright thing thrives where compassion and maturity end. We should know better than to join it there.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defacto religious test for office (2.00 / 0)

As to Jews and Catholics it should go without saying that there are plenty of people who won't vote for either for all the wrong reasons. It is a defacto religious test. Should it be legitimized?


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:17:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The slippage in the polls (2.00 / 2)

probably has a lot to do with the simple fact that the primary is still ongoing on our side, because it's affected Hillary as well. McCain's been allowed to remain essentially unchallenged and to solidify his party support, while our two are thrashing one another.

Once the Democratic primary is resolved, our nominee will be able to do the reaching out necessary to bridge the divides and turn their attention to the broader electorate. The playing field for us is still uniquely favorable, the issues matrix favors us, and all that jazz.

Long story short, we'll be fine.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:53:01 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Casey sounds like someone with a chip on his shoulder. Holding onto such grievences is typical of people stuck in the old politics of old Washington.

Clinton moved beyond that long ago.

Too bad the shiny new shiny shiny new Obama hasn't.


by Caliman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Is this a joke?

Criticize Obama for his policies, but don't pretend that he somehow represents Old politics.  


by cwsaterfield on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:02:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah (2.00 / 0)

This sounds like a guy with a chip on his shoulder:

The source, reached by The Inquirer yesterday, said that Casey was also impressed with how Obama had stood up to the pressures of the campaign, including recent attacks over the racially incendiary remarks of his former pastor.

Casey's decision was also personal, motivated in part by the enthusiasm his four daughters - Elyse, Caroline, Julia and Marena - have expressed for Obama, the source said. "He thinks we shouldn't be deaf to the voices of the next generation."


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah (none / 0)

It doesn't matter.

They don't care.  Casey's endorsement now doesn't matter "because he has a chip on his shoulder"


by gil on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

sweet (none / 0)

we can add this to the list, right after Judas accusation.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Just as a matter of interest, is there anyone that has endorsed Obama who you respect and wish had endorsed Clinton instead?  


by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Rev. Jeremiah Wright (none / 0)

THIS is a worth a read for context!


by Freedom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 08:56:19 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

I find that Pastor Wright is still very much the talk of the town on right wing blogs and Jerome's posts.


by cwsaterfield on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:00:23 AM EST

My wife and I were discussing this last night (2.00 / 0)

It seems like between when the Wright speeches became public and Obama's big speech on race, people of all walks of life were genuinely shocked by the clips of Rev. Wright.  I think it's two fold, one because he said some silly things and, two, because most people aren't used to the style and method of black preachers.  

But after Obama's speech on race, people looked at this and realized that everyone is associated with someone who says stupid things they disagree with and moved past it.

Except for two groups:  Clinton partisans who see this as the crow bar that could knee cap Obama and rabid Republicans who lunge at any opportunity to bash Democrats.

Politics does make strange bedfellows.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My wife and I were discussing this last night (none / 0)

Wrong  again,  bawbie.  

Polls  clearly  show  Obama  has  lost  the  Independents  and  Reagan Democrats  due  to   Wright.  

And  much of  the  now-disillusioned  white  youth  vote.  

And now,   the  "garlic-nosed"  Italians  and  Catholics.    

He's  unelectable  in  November,  and  he  will take  the  Democratic  Party down  with  him.


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My wife and I were discussing this last night (none / 0)

Polls clearly show that?

Really?

Which ones?

Because on the RCP national matchup, Obama has improved a couple points since the Wright thing happened.


by bawbie on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

oh I see... (none / 0)

this is you:

Wild accusation in angry tone
Conjecture about white youth vote
Conjecture about Italians
Fortelling of the future....

and most important

NO FACTS TO BACK IT UP.

show us some proof.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:24:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My wife and I were discussing this last night (none / 0)

In all seriousness, after the HRC Bosnia flap, how do you see her running against a POW Fighter Pilot, and making a claim to be a better Commander in Chief in the GE? After making up something on a subject that is bound to piss off vets?

I'm not being snarky - really, how do you see this playing out in the General election. I truly see this as her Dukakas driving the Tank moment when pitted against McCain, but I'd like to hear some other veiwpoints.


by tysonpublic on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

And while it may not affect the Democratic primary race, you can bet the house that it WILL be a factor in the fall if Obama is the nominee.


by cmugirl90 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 0)

Most of us have moved on. Bringing back Rev Wright's sermon over and over is a sign of desperation, since nothing else has worked. Or it would help paper-over gaffes made by one's own candidate. For the rest of us, Obama's speech in Philly was enough...

Notice how the other side has already stopped mentioning Hillary 'misspoken" Tuzla story. Its awful damage has been done, which cannot be undone no matter how one spins this story...


by mobiusein on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Its awful damage has been done, which cannot be undone no matter how one spins this story...

I don't quite agree with that. There IS a historical context that needs to be taken into consideration and the sooner that context is weaved into the Wright narrative, the further on the road towards Reconciliation wil this society be.


by Freedom on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:50:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yea for Senator Casey! (none / 0)

Casey is serious about putting a Democrat in the White House this Fall.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST

Pretty bad post... (2.00 / 3)

TUCC is not some fringe church - it's one of the largest congregations in Chicago.

It's part of a mainstream denomination and is a significant fixture on the south side of Chicago.  You could easily levy the same attacks against say.... St. Sabina and Father Michael Pfleger.  St. Sabina is a historic and large Roman Catholic church on the south side... Father Pfleger has likewise been known to say things a bit controversial... Louis Farrakhan has spoken at St. Sabina.

Frankly, I find it a bit distasteful to read a supposedly progressive blogger using similar lines of attack against Obama that we're seeing from Sean Hannity and company.

The dismissive nature of what you write about the church - a church that I'd venture to wager you've never visited, a congregation which I'd wager you know not a single member, an 'opinion' which I bet comes from no more than sound bites and cherry-picked 'factoids' - ought to be beneath you.


by zonk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:10:37 AM EST

Re: Pretty bad post... (none / 0)

I second this opinion. It is one thing for JA to be partisan and be enthusiastically supportive of his candidate. It is another to denigrate the other side in every way possible, often choosing the most trivial set of reasons to buttress his case. He does so by cherry-picking poll numbers, by circulating rumors and innuendos and by presenting misleading news stories and vicious factoids to the reader

Methinks, JA has lost all sense of perspective, wishing to cling to his increasingly ill-conceived position till the bitter end. It is a shame to see such a (once) reasonable and intelligent person go down in flames.


by mobiusein on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:50:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Or you could attack the Catholic Church (2.00 / 1)

which has been known to hold some offensive positions. Or you could attack Clinton's right-wing religious ties which liken their loyalty to the Nazis and the Mafia. However, you see that the strongest attacks are against an African-American church which isn't influential in American politics at all.

I'd say that Armstrong not only hasn't visited Trinity and not only doesn't know a single member but that he wouldn't even care to.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pretty bad post... (none / 0)

On  the other hand,   condoning  and  excusing  Wright's  racist  and  hateful  comments     paints  the  Democratic  Party  as  just  as  bad  as  the  Republicans  condoning  their  own   hateful  rightwing   pastors.  

Divisive   and  racist   hate-spewing   should  be  condemned   on  BOTH  sides.  

Unless   you  are  happy in your   hypocrisy.


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

erm, (none / 0)

So according to your standards ever Catholic is anti-woman right cause you know their spiritual leader the pope is anti-choice and anti-birthcontrol.

Also a lot of jews and chiristians (of every political side) are gay haters because many many rabbi and priests say beign gay is wrong.

Any more guilt by association????


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: erm, (none / 0)

No, because that has no bearing on Hillary being able to get the nomination -- unless you can find some way to tie the Pope's Nazi ties to Obama, thus strengthening Hillary's case to the remaining Superdelegates.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: erm, (none / 0)

Yep, let's all work hard over the next few months to stir up racist hatred in our communities so that whites won't vote for Obama in November. That way, we'll have an argument for the super-delegates to steel the nomination from the scary black man.

Wright wasn't stirring up racist hatred, but you and JA are.

Please stop. In the cold light of this fall, you will be ashamed of the things you have written and said in the primaries.


by alephnul on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:34:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I am a pro-choce in politics and an ethnic Irish Catholic by birth. Some of the above comments disgust me. Way to go -- if the Clintonistas antagonize people like me, the Senator doesn't stand a change in the GE. The refusal of the Clintons to allow Casey, Sr to speak in 1992 was a blot on the party and a pander to the Emily List - NARAL groups that vetoed it.

Why to go, Bob Junior.


by NYWoman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:13:19 AM EST

Re: Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

No one is trying to put down any religion, that I am sure. The point is that every religion and/or congregation has some part of it that doesn't look good when you strip it out of context.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:19:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Didn't Jerome write a book with some guy, I think his name is something like Kos or Markos or something, in which they talked about getting beyond the interest group politics of Naral, etc.?
by xtrarich on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

As I noted above, Casey Sr. wasn't allowed to speak because he wouldn't endorse the ticket.  Not because of his views on abortion.  I'm not a Hillary fan, and I've always admired the Casey family immensely, but that's a pretty legitimate reason.  


by HSTruman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:35:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton will win PA by good margin. So? (2.00 / 0)

Neither Casey nor Murtha will change that. But PA is not the new IA. It does not change the dynamic of the race for Sen. Clinton. Not enough delegates there, although its a big state. Unless she wins by more than  30 points which is unlikely. Even then she will be way behind.

She has no path to the nomination left. Sen. Clinton must concede so that we can concentrate on McCain.


by LibDem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM EST

Re: Clinton will win PA by good margin. So? (2.00 / 0)

If Casey can help Obama keep the margin down, that is a success for Obama.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True. But the effect is.. marginal n/t (none / 0)


by LibDem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton will win PA by good margin. So? (none / 0)

If Casey even helps at the margins, then he is helping a lot.  In order for Clinton to take a big delegate haul out of PA, she needs to rack up enormous margins in Appalachia and split 4 delegate district 3-1 and 5 delegate districts 4-1.  Casey is popular and respected in these parts of the state, he's a leader who can credibly say "Look, this guy is all right.  He'll look out for us.  It's time to unite behind a candidate and take the fight to the GOP".  If that's worth even 5% in West Pennsylvania, it could cost Hillary 10 delegates or more.


by Ryan Anderson on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 0)

While endorsements often don't help much, this one might. Casey is doing more than just endorsing - he's traveling on the bus with Obama for his bus tour and talking to voters. That's putting in some real effort. I understand that he is very much liked and respected in the areas where they'll be traveling. Casey likely helped plan the route that would be best since he knows the state and constituents. This is definitely a positive development.

A Superdelegate coming out for Obama every day until the PA primary? If that happens that would be cool.

by Becky G on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST

Writing off PA? I doubt it. (none / 0)

We all know that Clinton's writing off so many small to midsized states was a huge factor in enabling Obama to roll to such a big lead in pledged delegates.  

The Obama camp has to be at least as aware of this as we are.  I don't believe for a second that they're writing PA off.

They may fully believe they'll lose the state overall, both in votes and in delegates.  But they know this isn't winner-take-all, so they're not throwing in the towel.  

If they lose PA by 8-10%, that's no big deal.  Losing PA by 20 would be another story, and they know it.  So they've got every reason to not write off PA.  Winning PA may not be in the cards, but a big chunk of its electorate and delegates certainly is up for grabs.

I'll believe they're writing off PA when they go dark in PA.  I bet that doesn't happen between now and 4/21.


by RT on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:28:06 AM EST

Time for Super Delegates to make up their minds. (none / 0)

The only people who can bring the current  madness to an end are the SuperDelegates. Time to write to them and get them to make up their minds. demconwatch.blogspot.com has a list of uncommitted SDs. Any way to start a petition to them?

Even if some come out for Clinton, the faster they decide the better for the Party. Of course, being politicians they would like to hold on to their vote as much as possible. They need to be lobbied by the grassroots.


by LibDem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:29:54 AM EST

New Wright stuff is making its way into the MSM (none / 0)

This will affect the heavily ethnic vote in Pennsylvania.  

The national media has had their anti-Hillary week; now we may see an anti-Barack week as the "garlic nose" story makes the rounds in the MSM.  A typical story:  http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section =news/local&id=6047006

More controversial comments from Senator Barack Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright have come to light.
The comments are in an article published in the Trumpet magazine. Wright is listed as the magazine's chief executive officer, and his daughter is listed as publisher.
In the December 2007 issue, Wright describes the crucifixion of Jesus as a public lynching Italian style. He also writes about the "garlic noses" of Italians.
The Italian American Human Relations Foundation of Chicago condemned the comments.

The Newsday piece said:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/lo ngisland/politics/blog/2008/03/rev_wrigh ts_italian_job_hold_t.html

The irrepressible Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is at it again, this time taking aim at Italians -- expounding a two millenium grudge against the sons and daughters of Rome -- and their (allegedly) breath-altering prediliction for scampi and pesto.

Jake Tapper at ABC let it all hang out (maybe he reads MyDD):  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/more-wright-stu.html

More Wright Stuff
March 27, 2008 7:54 PM
Some more controversial, even offensive, material emanating from Sen. Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in the South Side of Chicago, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. This material attacks Israel, Italians, and the US government.
1) ISRAEL BUILT AN ETHNIC BOMB TO KILL ARABS
The June 10, 2007 church newsletter on the Pastor's Page includes some rather incendiary charges -- made by an Arab-American activists -- claiming that Israel worked with South Africa to develop an "ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."
2) SLURRING ITALIANS
New York Newsday reports that in the Dec. 2007 edition of the Trumpet magazine, published by Rev. Wright's daughter, the pastor in a eulogy for Asa Hilliard wrote that Jesus's "enemies had their opinion about Him... The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans." He calls the crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style" executed in "Apartheid Rome."
3) THE US GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY WHITE SUPREMACISTS
In that same eulogy Wright says that the US "government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in charge, but Asa, like Jesus, refused to be defined by an oppressive government because Asa got his identity from an Omnipotent God."
3) HAMAS OP-ED
Bizzyblog has published the July 22, 2007 church newsletter in which Wright reprints an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, which the US government named a terrorist organization in 1995.
Marzook was named a Specially Designated Terrorist by the Treasury Department In 2004, the Justice Department indicted Marzook for conspiring to violate U.S. laws that prohibit dealings in terrorist funds.

As we move on to Pennsylvania,  let's remember the classic line uttered by Bette Davis as the imperious Margo Channing in "All About Eve:" "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"


by katmandu1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST

Obam is DOOOOOOOMED!!! (none / 0)

Heh.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:38:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I say (none / 0)

we go hide in a bunker together from the Right Wing Noise Machine.

I mean who would ever think of fighting them...thats crazy talk.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Casey now demon spawn (none / 0)

Following in the footsteps of Richardson and everyone else who has endorsed Obama.


by Bob Johnson on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Ah, this is more like the Jerome we have come to know and "love" the last couple of months. Sadly yesterday's slight impartiality was but a blip on the radar screen and now back to the screeds. It was nice while it lasted.


by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:42:39 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

you guys here are really getting pathetic....another day, another front page story dedicated to wright

this is just as bad as the RNC and Faux News


by uscpdx1 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:46:26 AM EST

PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

The Casey  "didn't endorse and couldn't speak" explanation was a canard. At the time, everyone knew what the deal was -- NARAL and other pro-choice groups threatened to pitch a fit. It was the Clintons (and Gore to be honest) at their shabbiest. I linked to an account below.  To be fair, some very quietly pro-life dems like John
Breaux were allowed to speak. Casey was singled out because he was so publically pro-life.  Every religion has its clergy we would rather not be in the public eye (e.g the Catholic pedophile priests and the higherups who covered up for them).
We just cannot be bashing any religion no matter how impassioned one is. It's just ignorant.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS /stories/08/17/latimes.abortion/index.ht ml

 


by NYWoman on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:47:40 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

I suspect that one of the reasons the Wright thing isn't a bigger flack is that the ones who both would be likely to vote for Obama and not be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt are disproportionately church goers.  

People who regularly attend church know that the pastor and church bulletins don't always agree with them and they know that there are reasons to stay in the church - friends, good works, family history, a connection to their God - that remain important even if they don't like a sermon or two.  

Notice how much slack Huckabee was giving to Wright.  I don't think that people who go to a church want to be judged by the outsider perception of it, and they'd be willing to cut Obama slack for that reason.

And yes, I knocked on wood after typing this.


But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.
by thezzyzx on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 09:58:16 AM EST

Homophobic Smear? (none / 0)

Who's Pushing The "Wright Is Homophobic" Smear?

Bueller?
Bueller?
Bueller?


by bernardpliers on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST

Is there a SD out there... (none / 0)

...who HAS endorsed Barack that isn't:

1) a fool

2) has it out for the Clintons

3) worth a personal attack?

The problem with attacking them ALL, is that it makes it look like Hillary's people are suffering from sour grapes, rather than intellectually relvant discourse.  

Of the recent endorsements for ANY  of our candidates, this is by far the best one, with the most impact.  Richardson is ofcourse a nclose second.

Hillary has her share of great endorsements too, but folks...ripping on a SD after they make the endorsement is kinda transparent.


by a gunslinger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM EST

Re: Is there a SD out there... (2.00 / 1)

Maybe one factor here is that Jerome is brave enough to watch the commentary shows in Fox News, and I'm not.

Maybe the politicaly reality is that Fox News is covering this every two seconds.

I also think that it's legal, moral and ethical for Hillary Clinton and others to talk about this stuff. This isn't a case of Hillary Clinton lying about Obama. It's just a misguided campaign effort, not a reason to vote against her in November if she wins the Democratic nomination.

On the other hand, I think it's unfair to punish Obama because his church had a newsletter editor who occasionally published controversial letters to the editor. How would we feel if, say, Rush Limbaugh trashed us on air us for days just because MyDD.com let an obscure Flemish user post a diary calling Belgium a racist state?

I also think it's important for Democrats, especially, to acknowledge that there's a huge difference between a passionate black guy denouncing the United States on the West Side of Chicago -- in an area, that, when I was there around 1991, looked as if a nuclear bomb had hit it -- and, say, a healthy, wealthy, well-fed white person mocking black people.

When Goliath mocks David while David is on the ground, that's not the same as a tired, winded, bloodied David lashing out angrily at Goliath.

Somehow we have to find a way to reach out to angry white folks without whipping up hysteria about the dumb things some angry black folks say.


by sclminc on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Tom Cruise - (none / 0)

Would have asked me out on a date -
I would have said, "No."
by johnnygunn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM EST

Is this a diary about PA and Casey or is it (none / 0)

about Wright.  Me thinks you are desperate to attack Obama.  Poorly written - no coherent theme.


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:22:10 AM EST

Re: Is this a diary about PA and Casey or is it (none / 0)

Pay  attention,  dear.  

Rev.  Wright  will have  a  HUGE  effect  on  the Pennsylvania  vote.  

Had  the   voters in  Iowa  known  about  Wright,   Obama  would  not have  won.  

Period.  


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah... (none / 0)

and thats why Obama has been dropping in polls like a stone.

Lets see...in Rasmussen he is down by....erm...wait he is UP???? http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/1254 3/9554

Gallup surely will shows him dropping...HOLY SMOKES!! he is up by 8 there over Hillary???
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/28/1295 7/7875

On the other hand the polling on you making stuff is coming...and it is not looking good for you.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Kennedy-type endorsement non-effect (2.00 / 1)

I thought after the nationally televised  endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy that Hillary was toast. I was wrong. Now I know the electorate generally makes up its own mind and that it's the endorsement of Governors more so than Senators that matter. Governors inherently have the infrastructural ground network necessary to boost a campaign and get voters out.

Hillary won MA by double digits in spite of Ted Kennedy.


by meliou2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:23:12 AM EST

Re: The Kennedy-type endorsement non-effect (none / 0)

Who's the gov of Mass?  Deval Patrick...big Obama supporter.  It doesn't matter who does the endorsing.  Your original thought that the electorate makes up its own mind is accurate.


by writtenwithoutwax on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:14:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton will win by 20-30 and it's still not going (none / 0)

to change anything.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST

Re: Clinton will win by 20-30 and it's still not g (none / 0)

I find it curious that some are predicting the clintons will win by so much when hillary is only ahead by 10 or so and has been losing ground lately.

I'll leave predicting to the kreskins, but past events indicate that obama probably will close the gap more, and possibly even win.

And considering so many are predicting a landslide for hillary, does the "expectaions game" require anything less to be a defeat for her?


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:31:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think (none / 0)

we are keeping teh actual polling number a surprize...

The OFFICIAL story is that its a 20-30 percent win.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think (none / 0)

Well, if one is predicting, one might as well predict exactly what hillary needs to maintain a fool's hope of winning the nomination.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One hopes that the expectation (none / 0)

remains a trouncing. 20-30 and "white PA residents are too racist to vote for Obama". That's the official line and I hope the media sticks to it. Anything less will be looked at as a defeat, any movement in the Archie Bunker crowd will be looked at as a great thing.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:02:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One hopes that the expectation (none / 0)

Hillary has run a pretty bad campaign considering  she started so far ahead. But one thing her campaign does well is the "change expectations" game. Wherever she ends up is called winning.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True. She knows how to play the (none / 0)

media to a certain extent. It's the only reason they have just started hinting a her being a spoiler now rather than some time ago.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. She knows how to play the (none / 0)

It wouldn't surprise me if hillary and her supporters claim she's the real nominee even after she's voted down at the convention.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't surprise me one bit either. (none / 0)

I've already seen arguments that Obama is not legit because caucuses are undemocratic. Of course that ignores the fact that he's winning in just the primary states as well.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wouldn't surprise me one bit either. (none / 0)

Another thing Hillary's campaign is good at is making excuses for her failures. But we've had 8 years of that with Bush and don't need 8 more of it with The Clintons.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:30:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Continued Slide? (2.00 / 1)

There have been many statewide polls though, which show a continued slide against McCain, which is probably why Obama continues to try and figure out a way to end the story.

No there arent't.

First, a "continued slide" would require multiple polls in a state.  The only states with multiple polls in them since the Wright scandal are PA and NC, both of which have shown Obama with a more advantageous position in the primary(smaller deficit or larger lead) than before the Wright scandal.

Second, what states are those?  You linked several the other day that showed no such thing as they were  all red states that showed no significant movement.  California, Connecticut, Nevada, Washington, MN, NY, MA, WI etc all have Obama outperforming Hillary (and McCain) in the latest polls.  There is no evidence of a slide over Wright, let alone a 'continued slide'.  Obama still outperforms Hillary Clinton in the general election as well as the Democratic primary.  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:49:43 AM EST

Re: Continued Slide? (none / 0)

No, not against Clinton, against McCain.

MO has had multiple polls since then that show the slide. KY, OH, NC, AL, AR all have a poll showing a big drop.

Obama, given his standing in FL, probably can't afford to give up on OH too.


by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:22:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Continued Slide? (none / 0)

MO has had multiple polls since then that show the slide. KY, OH, NC, AL, AR all have a poll showing a big drop.

I stand corrected on MO, since one could claim that the SUSA poll that was conducted at the same time as the Wright controversy was coming out (3/14-16).  There was no change between then and 3/24.  RCP

That means its not a 'continual slide' but a singular 'hit'.

There has been no general election poll in Ohio since the controversy that I am aware of or that appears on RCP unless we use the two overlapping polls.  These polls show no movement from the Wright issue.

As to KY, NC, AL, AR, there is again no evidence of a "slide".  There is evidence of a 'hit' in a singular poll, just as Obama has gotten a 'bump' in other states.

If we interpret two polls since Wright as including those taken 14-16th my point does change.  There have been multiple polls since then in two other states.  Since the issue arose Obama has bounced back in more states (MA, MN) and 'slid' in at most one (and Missouri's example doesn't really show this).  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just trying to imagine (none / 0)

What the "progressive" reaction would be if an anti-choice, pro Roberts and Alito Democrat had endorsed Hillary...

No criticism I'm sure...


by SaveElmer on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:09:27 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Hey Jerome, perhaps you'd like to take some time out of your front page to tell Bill Clinton to stop reinforcing McCain's image as a "Moderate".

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/03/clinton-praises.html

Considering the Republicans are going to continue to talk about how "liberal" our candidates are (no matter who wins the nomination), do we really want to cede this "moderate" term to McCain?  I think we should instead be talking about how he's no different than Bush: just a right-wing ideologue.


by leshrac55 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:22:45 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

It's strange watching progressives willingly take part in the Republican Echo Chamber to slander Democratic candidates.

"...continues to try and figure out a way to end the story."

Classic example of the tactic there.


by digdug on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:27:21 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

NOt  really.  

We  Democrats   don't  want  to  be painted  as   seeing    Wright's  hate  speech  as   "no  big  deal."    

It's  a big  deal.    

Hate  speech on  EITHER  side  is  to be  condemned, period.  

That  USED  to be  what   Democrats  stood  for.


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he did (none / 0)

condemn it!!! go listen to the speech please.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clintons never quit. (none / 0)

Saddle up Obama supporters and lets finish this fight.

Let all the people vote, let all their votes count and then it will be over.


by gotalife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:29:58 AM EST

Somewhat OT but bothersome... (none / 0)

I would not mind Casey's pro life stance if it also applied to the death penalty.  It does not, and I think that makes his "pro-lifeness" total hypocrisy.

Actually, I am having problems with both Democrats about this issue.  They are both fairly strong supporters of the DP.  I remember when being a Democrat was automatically opposing capital punishment, and wonder about the utter cowardice by our current candidates on that score.  It was one of the reasons I supported John Kerry so strongly; he did not reinvent himself on the issues to run for office.  Ted Kennedy is also opposed, and my state is one of, I think 13 or 14 where it doesn't exist.  

I would vote for a Republican at this point, who opposed the DP over a Dem who did not, I believe it is that strong a descriptor of our culture (not going to happen, they are not going to take risks on this either).  It would be nice to see our party take the lead in bringing us in line with the rest of the West on this issue.


by mady on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:31:06 AM EST

Re: Somewhat OT but bothersome... (none / 0)

I just don't see the DP being a major part of the Democratic platform at the moment.  The fairness of its application, probably, but it's just too popular to eliminate completely, and honestly, that's fine with me.  There are plenty of crimes where I think it's reasonable to lose your life as a punishment.  Rape and kill a little kid?  Yep, your life is forfeit, and I've got no problem with that.

I don't see abortion and DP being particularly linked, either.  I'm mostly pro-choice, though I think there should be significant restrictions on late-term abortions.  But that has no bearing on my view of the DP.


by ChrisKaty on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Somewhat OT but bothersome... (none / 0)

This has always been the litmus test of progressive beliefs and human decency to me.  I had huge respect for Governor Ryan when he instituted a moratorium.  How we treat those we have complete power over shows who we are.  I don't know how to reconcile belief in the DP with any other part of a progressive platform.


by mady on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep digging, I'm sure you'll find someone (none / 0)

who cares about the Bullshit Wright stuff.


by descrates on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST

Re: Keep digging, I'm sure you'll find someone (none / 0)

The  Independents  and  the  Reagan Democrats  CARE  about  the  Wright  stuff.  

Obama  can't  win in November  without  them.    


by auntmo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

According to Pollster
Both Clinton and Obama are "sliding" against McCain in PA. at this way too early time.
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-Mv O.php
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:33:46 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Wright admitted plenty of times that his comments were divisive. Just not while apologizing for himself on tv. He told Obama, he told his congregants, I'm pretty sure he's said so in interviews I've read. He fully understands that what he says is both unpopular and extremely divisive.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:36:35 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I can't imagine a 6 day bus tour of PA with a moderately popular PA senator(along with a significant ad buy and significant negative coverage of his opponent) will have zero beneficial impact for Obama.  He may get a bump in polling there in the next couple weeks.  

Last time around, the negative media and negative attacks largely hit in the last week before the primaries in OH/TX.  This time around, most of the negative stuff has come out weeks beforehand, and Obama has plenty of time to deal with it and build his brand ID there.  

I expect they will roll out one major endorser every Friday between now and 4/22.  Ideally the last one(on 4/18) would be the biggest, though I think there's only about 2 or 3 SDs who qualify...


by megaplayboy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Casey isn't moderately popular, he's very popular with the voters that Obama is weakest with and who are with Clinton. That doesn't mean that Casey's support will move their support much though.


by Quinton on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:28:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It helps Obama... (none / 0)

...because they will be more open to what he has to say.  He just needs a good opening in order to improve his standing there.  A win there ends the nomination fight, and a close loss followed by wins in IN and NC will also do the trick.  


by megaplayboy on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Saddle up and (none / 0)

lets have an argument on these lies:

"We have had Senator Obama said his parents met and joined -- got together at the Selma March, and that led to them being together and him being born. Well, he was born four years before the Selma March.

He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child. His schoolteacher said that was not the case.

He claimed to be involved in an asbestos campaign in public housing in his book, and it turned out not to be the case.

More...

He claimed that he had a racial awakening at the age of 9 by reading a LIFE magazine article about an African-American man was scarred physically and mentally by trying to make himself look more white. LIFE magazine and Ebony magazine never published such an article.

Senator Obama said, I didn't have much of a relationship with Rezko. He didn't raise me much money. This is the guy under indictment in Chicago. We didn't have a very serious relationship. And then refused to give interviews to The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Sun-Times to answer their questions.

Well, when the Reverend Williams (ph) story broke, when there was all that bad news about Reverend Williams (ph), Senator Obama called up on a Friday, the same day that the Williams (ph) stuff was boiling hot, called up The Sun-Times and The Trib, and said, I'll give you those interviews now about Rezko, in which he said, yes I had a deeper, longer, more significant relationship with him.

He raised me a lot more money and the real estate deal was just as stinky as you thought it was, but nobody in America -- or very few people in America saw that because those stories ran at a time when our focus was on something else, Reverend Wright and his extreme comments."


by gotalife on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:38:07 AM EST

Re: Saddle up and (none / 0)

Do any of these things come to the level of making up a story where Clinton and Sinbad had to go racing across a tarmack in Bosnia while sniper fire wizzed by their heads? And did she ever explain who was protecting Chelsea as this all happened? Was it Sheryl Crow?

We all puff-up our resumes, but this is a bold faced lie.


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saddle up and (2.00 / 1)

The law school in question has issued a statement that Obama was, indeed, a professor.

I suspect these other unsourced allegations are equally baseless.


The Washington Post gave Mrs Clinton four Pinocchios for [the sniper story], which is like three Michelin stars, only for lying. -- The Economist
by BITNPB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saddle up and (none / 0)

Well, since he is in fact a professor according to the law school in question, that one's pretty much BS.  Also, if you really want to get into tall tales recounted by family members (as if every family doesn't do that), you should note that, up until 2006, Clinton claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the man who climbed Mt. Everest.  Of course, she was born 6 years before he made his climb.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=52477

Moreover, Obama has been endorsed by the Chicago Tribune, which stated that the ties with Rezko did not show any wrongdoing on Obama's part.

The rest of these supposed "lies" are too petty to dignify a response.  In fact, they all are, but I just wanted to give you a sampling of how pathetically off-base they truly are.


by rfahey22 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saddle up and (none / 0)

"We have had Senator Obama said his parents met and joined -- got together at the Selma March, and that led to them being together and him being born. Well, he was born four years before the Selma March.
No he didn't.  The exact quote would demonstrates this.  

He claimed to be a constitutional law professor, and turned out not to be.

Yes he was, the law school has confirmed this.  

Claimed to speak fluent Indonesia as a child. His schoolteacher said that was not the case.

First, thats not a 'lie' thats a he-said-she-said.  Second, he did speak the language of Indonesia as a child.  Thats not disputed.  

This is a parroting of RNC attack memos with the addition of Reverend "Williams" (strong grasp of the facts there) that at the time neutral observers called "weak" and "a bit of a stretch".  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Saddle up and (none / 0)

One of the great things about being an Obama supporter is that every time you see a post like the  one you replied to, you know it's all going to turn out to be rubbish.  Having supported candidates where the opposite is true, it is very refreshing.


by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

oops..sorry about double obama
here is Clinton
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Pres-GE-Mv C.php
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:42:38 AM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Wright didn't apologize for being divisive (that I heard), but that wasn't Obama's point -- if Wright had stayed and not apologized, Obama would have left the church. Since Wright announced his retirement right around when Obama learned of the particular offensive statements, the point became moot. I think you're misreading Obama's statement.
by jere7my on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:14:58 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (1.00 / 1)

Hannity and Armstrong are vying for the title of who can focus on Reverand Wright the most.

They are in lockstep,I guess. Working together.
Must make Jerome so proud.

Marsh,Armstrong and Hannity..All Great Americans.


by hawkjt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:17:09 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Yes because only St. Obama is above scrutiny...


by SaveElmer on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Obama isn't above scruitiny.

He (and Clinton) are above stupid scuitiny.

Scruitinze the policies, Jerome. That's what we're here for. Appeal to our better -- or at least intellectual -- angels. Not this crud.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Where's the expose on Doug Coe? (none / 0)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

The diarist starts off with analysis of the PA race, then meanders off into pushing the Wright story, then misrepresents the poll numbers: his link is broken, but pollster has the spread at 12%, not 16%, down from 19% a couple week ago.

If this is a site for political junkies, why not just put aside the bias and call the thing straight, without the ill-concealed hope that a hashed-out scandal will bloom again?

What are the facts? The facts are that Clinton's lead in PA has narrowed significantly, but remains in the double digits. The facts are that despite Wright, Obama's national numbers are back where they were in late Feb. The facts are that Obama is outspending Clinton three to one in PA and just embarked on a bus tour of the state, to which Clinton will answer with her own tour next week.

PA looks like a win for HRC, but there's a lot of road between there and here. Would-be analysts, front-page and otherwise, would shed more light if they offered less partisan heat.


The Washington Post gave Mrs Clinton four Pinocchios for [the sniper story], which is like three Michelin stars, only for lying. -- The Economist
by BITNPB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:18:25 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I'm sure Jerome will want to update his analysis of the impact of the Wright story with the news that Obama put up his biggest lead in Gallup's daily tracking poll ever; up by eight points, a fifteen-point swing since The Speech. /snark


The Washington Post gave Mrs Clinton four Pinocchios for [the sniper story], which is like three Michelin stars, only for lying. -- The Economist
by BITNPB on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM EST

The shame of Jerome's writing. (2.00 / 1)

Is it's quality of argument. There is a bright side to this pulp. If this is the best that HRC can do, if this is the best defense, if these are the best arguments her campaign can make then she is well and truly done. I understand that Jerome is one of Hillary's "fierce" supporters, and such has no brake, no second thought on what can be said, does not put his thinking through a filter of what kind of progressive movement his words inspire. One should not criticize Jerome the way one argues with other writers, one just watches in shamed amazement.
by inexile on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 12:56:37 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

this allegedly terrible problem for Obama doesn't seem to be reflected in the Hillary-Obama polls, which show Obama surging ahead.  He's up by a large margin in Gallup and for the first time moved ahead in Rasmussen.  All the momentum is with Obama now.  Democratic primary voters simply aren't afraid of black churches, and aren't willing to play the guilt by association game.


by pontificator on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:01:58 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Shhhhh.  Please don't let facts and reality get in the way of the preferred narrative ;-)


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jeroms, your last couple of posts??????? (2.00 / 0)

Go ahead Jerome, see if you can ride white backlash against black anger all the way to the White House.  

Oh, wait a minute that strategy was already tried by ...... by Richard M Nixon.  

Yeah baby, you are really crashing the gates now.


by upper left on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

I honestly feel like if Jerome reads all of these comments and all of the arguments and factoids, he must come to the conclusion that the majority of those who frequent his blog find his use of Pastor Wright's sound-bites reductive and harmful.

Jerome- do you read us?

Enough is enough.  


by cwsaterfield on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I agree. I have tried many times to appeal to his sense of reason with no effect. If Hillary wins because she (and her surrogates) keep dredging up Jeremiah Wright it hurts all of us and eventually Jerome will see that. Meanwhile, look forward to the day that he is obligated to write a diary saying it is now time for us to rally around Obama. That will be sweet music to my ears.


by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Barack Obama is pretty much on self-destruct.  He doesn't need Hillary Clinton or anyone else.  His arrogance is so blinding that he makes a call to Governor Rendell and then the Governor has a laugh at his expense on Larry King last night ...

Don't you think that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the boys would love to wrap Barry Obama in bubble wrap and put him in a closet for a week or so just to keep him from further damaging his own chances?  I see that they have managed to shut Michelle up ...


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:17:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I doubt it. Most readers are here to read opposing points of view intelligently engaged, not a bunch of half-assed 'factoids'. Many readers came here to escape the piling on and refusing to engage in discussion that has become typical of DailyKos threads, and that have infested the MyDD comments for the past few weeks. Say in the past 10 days since you began commenting here, and since a number of prominent DKos posters re-engaged with MyDD.

Rest assured, Jerome will not be bullied by you or any of your compatriots. You can give a passionate defense of Obama without resorting to this.


by souvarine on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (2.00 / 1)

I have been posting here for a lot longer than 10 days. And I have never posted on DK, just to set that record straight. I agree that this site had been, up to a couple of months ago, the closest thing to open, non-onesided dialogue that we have in the political blogosphere. But recently the tone has taken a big hit--partly due to the stridently anti-Obama posts by Jerome. There are lots of a**holes on both sides, throwing names around and I have commended the admins here for their efforts to rein this in recently.


by wasder on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:18:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

You've been commenting for almost two months, and you have been declaring this race over and trying to shut down debate since you began. You have a peculiar obsession with attacking Jerome for posting his opinions.

There are plenty of new and old, Obama and Hillary supporters here who are happy to engage in a vigorous debate on the merits and prospects of each candidate. None of us like being told to shut up.


by souvarine on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I have tried to be critical only of opinions that seemed to be over the top in either an unrealistic way or unnecessarily harsh tone. I have complimented other types of posts from Jerome. I acknowlege it is his right to write whatever he wants. I do think he has an obligation to be as even handed as he can be (I think Bowers does this well) given his stature in the community. I am sorry if I have bummed him or you out by writing whatever I have written.


by wasder on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:26:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I understand it's pretty simple to start a blog.  You will have time to start one ....


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I think that Jerome would find most of you in denial and detached from the reality of language.  But we will have to wait for him to weigh in.

I am curious how you parsse "God Damn America?"


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

i'm really disappointed he hasn't drawn a clear line in the sand with Rev Wright. However, Hillary will stop at nothing to cheat her way around party rules etc to get the nomination.
I'm just bummed that we gotta choose between these two shady opportunists.
Ya know I come here and I read all about how Obama is the devil & Hillary is a progressive bastion who can do no wrong. I go to Daily Kos and everyone says just the opposite. Seriously, they both can kiss my ass.
Wish we had a Howard Dean about now.
by astronautagogo on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 01:44:10 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I never thought to live to see the day when "Democrats" would advocate not counting votes .... if this is "hope," "change," or "unity" those good people in Michigan and Florida are going to surprise you and Obama in November.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:10:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Obama is a great man, but he is only plausible as an aracial, or trans-racial candidate.  Every speech he has to give about race, no matter how eloquent or worthy of comparison to the Gettysburg Address, is a loss for him among the general electorate, and mostly likely is a loss for Democratic prospects.


by Bob H on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 02:55:41 PM EST

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I for one am grateful that his "greatness" escapes me.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

I know Casey, have met Casey and campaigned for Casey. He only won because he is his father's son and Rendell propped him up.

He's not very bright, a bad campaigner, and is uncomfortable around LGBT people.


Fight for Democrats in Congress.
by owl06 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM EST

Casey, Catholics and abortion (none / 0)

The Casey endorsement will help Obama most because of Casey's signature distinction, that of a pro-life Democrat. Casey helps draw attention to Obama's ambiguity on choice (one of those divisive 'culture issues' Obama doesn't want to fight over), and may draw some conservative, otherwise Republican, anti-choice Catholic voters into Obama's camp.


by souvarine on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 03:40:59 PM EST

Re: Casey, Catholics and abortion (none / 0)

I wonder who will draw attention to Obama's ambiguity with facts and truth?  John Murtha and Governor Rendell seem like excellent choices, no?


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:08:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: PA, Obama, Casey, and buses (none / 0)

Just one small comment - about Rev. Wright, what he said on The View was that had Rev. Wright not expressed any regret/sadness for what had happened, then he might have left.  But Obama also said that he spoke with Rev. Wright recently about what happened and that Rev. Wright had expressed sadness, etc.  So there's nothing inconsistent about what he's said there - it's just poor headline writing by various sites online.

(By the way, though I support Obama, at first I was upset that he might have waffled, but when I saw the View I realized that he hadn't.)


by barath on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:43:21 PM EST

Say what? (none / 0)

Since when are private religious church bulletins part of "the public discourse"?

Man, the Clinton campaign gets more whack by the day.


by JD Lasica on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:10:10 PM EST

Re: Say what? (none / 0)

You might feel differently if you were pro-Israel.  Not that many Palestinians vote here in the United States ... get it?


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."
by beebop on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 05:07:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]


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.