Clinton supporters (the H44 crowd) who have a two part agenda.  First, get Clinton elected.  If that should fail then Second, prevent Obama from getting elected.

Once the primaries are over, we'll be able to weed out those troublemakers.

Eek!  I guess this journalist (and now the Obama camp) are running a southern strategy campaign!

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl e/0,8599,1779544,00.html

my exact same experience.

Exactly!  Black voters aren't idiots! In fact, they are probably the most intelligent voting demographic out there!  Every year, the republicans put up some uncle tom hoping that AA's will vote for a black face.  They never do.  They know what's up, and aren't fooled easily!

I don't think that's a good reason to assist ushering McCain into the White House.

The only problem I have with the Wright situation is that Obama and his camp continue to insist that Obama does not make politically expedient decisions, which of course is untrue and the Wright situation proves that.

Of course he does.  He has to, like they all do. They have to. Again, reality folks!

Your argument, to me, is like people saying they will not vote for Clinton because of her Iraq authorization vote, and then condemn her for making a politically expedient position rather than being idealistic and high minded. That simply is not the reality.

They make politically expedient decisions because if they don't, and they lose, what good are they?  

People need to empathize more, understand the positions these sorts of things put these people in, and try to understand their thinking processes, but we don't do that.  

I too am bothered by the Wright stuff, but only i the sense that it dispels the myth about Obama having great judgment and not being political.  If they'd acknowledge that he's mortal like the rest of us, including Clinton, I'd ease up on him a bit.

First, Wright's sermons can not be accurately characterized by the snippets that were played on TV.  Most of what he preached about was about Christ and community and working to improve your own life.  He is not the black separatist racists that some would have you believe.  I know the non-black members of his congregation certainly don't believe that of him.

Secondly, a church is often much more than just its preacher.  Being active as a community organizer, Obama may have felt motivated to stay active in that church because it was THE church for that area and was central to much of the social outreach going on in that community.

These issues are never as simple as the TV would like you to believe.

Peace

I'm genuinely saddened if you're not voting for Obama based on Wright, because your decision is premised on a falsehood. I live in Chicago, and both Reverend Wright and Trinity are very respected here--and nationally among the religious community. I'll admit that I was disturbed by the clips I saw. However, I understood better after I listened to the sermons in their entirety, and considered that they amounted to a few minutes ripped from 20+ years of preaching.

I won't deny that Wright has a reputation for being controversial, and holds some political views that I disagree with. But the truth is that you can't judge Wright without also considering the immeasurable good that he's done for the community. He's a man of the civil rights era and he's built a church that embraces people from all races, viewpoints, and walks of life. He's been a strident fighter for the downtrodden, not just the black community. He was at the forefront in embracing the GLBT community, establishing an AIDS care program, and opposing apartheid and racial injustice when the rest of the world ignored it. Under his guidance Trinity established job training, child daycare, and numerous other outreach programs.

All of these works define the Reverend Wright that we know in Chicago. That's why he was supported through this crisis by religious leaders of all faiths from across the city and country. He's a genuinely good man who's devoted his life to the service of others. That's why Obama didn't condemn him in his Philadelphia speech, and that's why not one of his parishioners, or the community in Chicago, would condemn him now. We know him for who he is, not the caricature that has been painted of him by a few minutes taken out of context.

The saddest part of this situation is what it has done to Trinity. They've been regularly receiving bomb threats, had parishioners harassed at home and in services, and Wright's life has been repeatedly threatened. If you don't understand why Wright lashed out at the press club, just keep in mind how heavily all this was weighing on him. And understand that the press are the ones responsible for painting this inaccurate picture that led to the assaults on him and his church. I admit that, given his frame of mind, even going to the press club was bad idea. It was an act of anger mixed with vanity, and that's why the people who know him well tried to stop him. But he went, and Obama was forced to publicly reject him. It's a sad thing, but Wright had gone too far and I can't see how Obama had any other choice at that point.

So, we all know that Wright has his flaws, but if you look at the man as a whole you can see the overwhelming good that Obama saw. And really, is it fair to fall into the trap of attributing Wright's views to Obama? Many practicing Catholics are pro-choice and support the GLBT community, even though their churches regularly preach against that. For those Catholics, the strength of their faith and goodness of their church outweigh the faults of the messenger. If you can accept that, I don't see what you can't accept about Wright and Trinity.

What do we know that Wright said over 20 years, that Obama heard, that makes Obama so disgusting?  That he said God damn America for how it treated some of its people?  Even out of context, it's not nearly reason for four more years of the horrific road down which this current administration has led us.  They HAVE damned America.  

I'm concerned about the lobbyists Clinton has so readily cozied up with, but I'll still gladly vote for her in November.

It's about who they are and what they've done.

This whole Wright thing to me seems so OBVIOUSLY a red herring charade that it's hard for me to fathom your comment (unless you're a republican, secret, closeted, or otherwise...not accusing, i just don't get it).  I can't see remotely what's so offensive about him.

People perceive bias in the news, and the more aware they are of the issues the more bias they perceive. One study looked at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They took supporters of both sides, and had them watch the same newscast. Both sides reported it as biased against their side. Just something to keep in mind as you argue here.

... for those interested, I think I learned about this reading Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. Great book.

In a lot of ways, the long primary has hurt the party.  If you took Democrats, showed them Obama and McCain side-by-side and asked them to choose the better candidate, there's no question who they'd pick. And they did, early on; virtually all Obama voters said they'd back Clinton and vice-versa.

Now you have imbeciles saying they won't back Obama because of Reverend Wright or because the media's mean to Hillary or because of something Randi Rhodes said or other trivial or made-up issues.  It's a gauntlet that McCain hasn't had to deal with.

Why?  It's an important juncture in time...what about Obama is so intellectually unappealing (in a way that Clinton is not) that you just CANNOT vote for him and would prefer to passively aid in four more years of Bush?  It is your right, of course...but if you really are upset with the direction of the country or believe in the furtherance of progressive ideals, you'd better have a valid answer for that one.

It's not that I think Obama is such the progressive ideal, but have trouble seeing how people could see him as so much worse than Clinton.

Well said.

It's not about Obama v. McCain for me. That goes without saying.

It's about obama v. clinton.

Meeting theat number before May 30th is critical, as much as the HRC team has been trying to recast the number as 2210.  Their problem is that the supers know that the HRC team is being disingenuous, as HRC and her top advisors and campaign managers have frequntly cited the 2025 number throughout the first half of the campaign.  On top of that, you have McAuliffe advocating against counting Michigan's delegates back in 2004 for the very reason he is asking Michigan to be counted as is in 2008.  These guys spin too wildly to be taken seriously anymore.