Sen. Clinton's Deadly Mind Control Over Jeremiah Wright
UPDATE: Hilarious! Never misunderestimate the mind-bending stupidity that some Obama supporters will proudly display. You see, Jeremiah Wright is just a robot who is easily controlled by supporters of Sen. Clinton. (The person who wrote this article - Errol Louis - didn't seem to wonder whether the Obama-loving MSNBC was broadcasting Wright non-stop in order to help Sen. Clinton).
I eagerly await blog posts at Americablog, Daily Kos, Talkingpointsmemo and The Huffington Post about the Powerful Mind ControlTM that Sen. Clinton exerts over Jeremiah Wright. The kind of control that was responsible for Wright giving his latest speech and displaying his self-reverence by falsely claiming that criticism of him is the same as criticism of the Black church. (I don't know about you but I know African Americans who I am sure don't believe some of the nonsensical things Wright believes in and who would not be particularly thrilled to be told that Wright speaks for them).
Not too long ago it was fashionable for some "top" "progressive" bloggers to viciously attack Sen. Clinton and claim that it was hard to believe she could not control her surrogates. As one of them wrote back then (emphasis mine, throughout this post):
The Ferraro episode is just the latest and clearest evidence. Ferraro has been in the game for a long time. She gets it. She knows how the media operates. She knows the impact of her words. She is, after all, a Fox News consultant with her own Fox News bio. The Clinton campaign also knew exactly what was happening. They didn't stop it. And, it's hard to imagine Howard Wolfson and his crew couldn't rein in Ferraro.
At the time, of course, Sen. Clinton had been badly hurt in the media by Ferraro's comments (Ferraro had just resigned as well). It was pretty clear that Sen. Clinton repudiated/rejected Ferraro's comments - which didn't stop the Clinton-bashers from indulging in some gratuitous guilt-by-association. Now, we have free agent Jeremiah Wright hurting Sen. Obama, who clearly does not believe in the incendiary nonsense that Wright has been spouting. What is David Axelrod's response? An entirely reasonable one:
"I'm not going to comment Rev. Wright's motivations or the political implications of what he is doing, he doesn't speak for us," Axelrod added. "The question is back to you guys. Obviously you've given him a huge media platform. I was sort of surprised to see three hours of coverage last night on one of the cable networks." CNN was the network to which he referred.
Exasperated near the end of the segement, Axelrod asked, "How many times can you say I don't agree with him, some of the things he says are outrageous and he doesn't speak for me? How many times can you say that?"
Of course, one could claim that "it's hard to imagine David Axelrod and his crew couldn't rein in Wright", and use such claims to infer that Sen. Obama therefore (secretly or otherwise) agrees with Wright. I would however strongly urge people against doing this. Why? Well, sometimes "surrogates" (especially those whom you have known for years) are difficult to "rein in" because life and relationships are complicated. Which is not the same as saying that one should not do one's best to rein in out-of-control surrogates.