Whatever. Your candidate has lost, Turkana. When you are forced to admit it, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

For now, I've taken this post and printed it out. I am currently holding it in front of me.

Shortly, I shall be holding it behind me.

i don't have a candidate, spanky, and your anger should be directed at your candidate's campaign team for behaving like idiots.

Turkana doesn't have a candidate, just an un-candidate.

Yeah, this was dumb of the campaign. Obama wants Wright out of the news - the only time to do this would have been the same news cycle Wright first got attention.

Shortly, I shall be holding it behind me.

Got to admit Spanky, I LOL on that one!

capj,

i don't even have an uncandidate, although i do have uncandidate bloggers.

otherwise, exactly. seriously stupid move by an otherwise very smart political team.

What is interesting to me, is why hasn't Obama's campaign tried to get Wright to diffuse the issue as soon as possible? Perhaps he will address the issue when he wins this award soon?

7o6,

any thinking member of obama's staff- and wright himself, for that matter- knows that what's best for obama is that wright enjoy his retirement, out of the spotlight.

Are you telling me that you don't have any close friends or family, even those you respect, with whom on occasion you strongly disagree or who sometimes make comments that cause your insides to churn? Does the fact that they uttered those comments by necessity mean cutting off relations?

Makes sense Turkana.

Since Wright has had a full accomplished career, prior to a few speeches, could the Obama team have been thinking that he once was acknowledged by the President of the United States. Kind of a reverse damage control.
Nah, that would be dumb.

7o6,

that clearly wasn't what they were thinking, and it would have been stupid, anyway. they need people to forget about wright.

panhu,

it depends on whether or not he wants to be elected president. i'm allowed to have friends who are loose cannons, but i'm not trying to win swing voters in fl, pa, oh, mi, wi, ia, and mo.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/20/224958/631/841/481227

The first enclosed video shows the whole Pastor Wright sermon, the second shows the portions excerpted by the media. Seeing it in the broader context changes one's perception significantly. But don't hold your breath waiting for the media to show us the longer version.

Turkana, You feeling better?

Where in the world is Hillary Clinton lately, and what is she up to? For better or worse, Obama is dominating the airwaves, the papers, and the blogs. She can't afford to just stand around and hope the the Pastor Wright stuff is going to get the job done.

art, Seems that CNN has asked for interviews to assure equal time but Hillary has politely declined.

7o6,

thanks- still on the mend. this one has a very weird process- just as you're rebounding, it has one last kick, with what seems to be a minor sinus infection. painful and exhausting, but hopefully finally on the wane. my wife had it, and it took her 3 weeks to get better. nasty.

Wow, that's a blunder. I've been struck by how dazed and delayed the Obama campaign's response to this Wright controversy has been, on the whole.

I mean, they saw it coming—surely? I'm willing to lay down money Axelrod et al suggested he quit the church way back when. In other words, Obama called the shots on this stinker, and now he's paying the price.

Even given that, why do little blunders like this one you've referenced keep coming up?

The whole thing is kind of staggering, really. I cannot understand why Obama thought he could skate through the campaign and not have this come out and bite him. I can't understand why he didn't do something to diffuse it far earlier. I really can't understand why he had to run this election cycle. If he'd waited, Wright would be safely retired and he could put some distance between him and the pastor.

"Audacity of hope" indeed.

If Obama is the nominee, we are looking at President McCain. I would really like to be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

Not very long ago the Obama campaign looked unstoppable and competent. They controlled the media narrative as well as any candidate ever has.

Then the wheels came off.

Now they seem to be flailing about, clueless as to how they can right their sinking ship.

Every day seems to bring another gaffe or misstep. They are on the defense and seem almost inept at damage control.

I am a Hillary supporter but not an Obama hater. A few weeks ago I was pretty much resigned to her defeat.

Now I'm wondering if Obama will survive, let alone win.

Richardson has just endorsed Obama.

It's all over but the whining.

I am going to kick back and enjoy watching some heads explode.

Richardson for V/P!

one of the most frustrating and aggravating things about obamamites is how naive they ..and their candidate..reverend wright has doomed his chances..he is unelectable..hillary will crush him in PA..and if given the chance will crush him in michigan fl...his phoney caucus wins in red states are not enough regardless of how many repugicans have voted for him....super delagates have a job to do...hillary clinton will be the nominee..and at this point i am not even sure obama wouldn't be a drag on the ticket

the repug attach machine was handed a gift with wright..the tapes would be played ad nauseum...and do you little obamamites really think he can get past that?

Come on, Turkana, this isn't helping advance the political discourse for the Dem primary. Two points:

- Were I an Obama advisor, I absolutely would recommend running the Wright/Bill Clinton photo. I would do it to blunt Hillary Clinton's campaign's hints at the Wright attack angle and hopefully to stop them from trying to use it. Also, thanks to the corrupt press, the issue isn't going away, so better to address it fully than pull the Kerry 2004 "let the truth speak for itself" strategy.

- More importantly, Wright should not be politically damaging to Obama. Did you see what Wright was actually saying? You can't tell me that's all that different from any number of things you wrote on dKos in the past year. If anything, I'm peeved at Obama for even the vague disavowal of Wright's comments that he did give in the speech. Wright was spot on.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Yes, damn that America.

If anything, association with Wright should be a credit to Obama -- and to the Clintons. Wright is only "political garbage" according to the corrupt press, which is trying to thwart any meaningful discussion.

Simplify:

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that what Rev, Wright said doesn't matter and at the same time say "Clinton did it too!"

And there is a huge difference between getting a picture taken at a "grip and grin" session and a 17 year relationship.

Presidents meet thousands of people before, during and after their terms in office. Most of the time, those meeting last only a few seconds.

The Secret Service is expected to weed out potential assassins, but they don't check people for other "baggage."

simplify

thank you for proving my point

simplify,

if i were running for president, i could not write what i do.

You have the spectacle of Princeton- and Harvard- educated lawyers, one of them making $300,000 per year, listening to "black liberation" theology about "oppressed people" and the irredeemable meanness of a society that gave them everything. The Obamas and the rest of that congregation are into black radical chic.

RICHARDSON!!!!

Now if only my former choice Edwards would interrupt his Hamletian navel examination and do the right and obvious thing by endorsing OBAMA.

Turkana.
why not take your fingers off the keyboard for a couple days, relax and rejuvenate, get over whatever ails you, and reflect on what POSITIVE contribution you can make to future sociopolitical discourse once Mrs. Clinton finally concedes??

Turkana - It is deeply troubling to me to visit a site I've read for years and find a reference to "dimwitted Obama bloggers." I have always thought incendiary language to be a tactic of the far right and talk radio, who use bombast, not reasoned logic, to get their points across.

richardson...well i guess that wraps it up for obama!!...new mexico solidly behind him and all

"Are you telling me that you don't have any close friends or family, even those you respect, with whom on occasion you strongly disagree or who sometimes make comments that cause your insides to churn? Does the fact that they uttered those comments by necessity mean cutting off relations?"

______________

Yet more dissembling and obfuscation from democrats who used to argue for reality-based truth. For the 1000th time, panhu -- you don't choose your family, you do choose your church and pastor. I left my family's church way back when due to their bigotry and hatefulness. Obama chose to embrace those things through Wright for 20 years AND to support them with thousands of dollars. Judgment, indeed. Unity, indeed. Hope, indeed.

This photo of Rev. Wright was held throughout this ordeal by the MSM.

Why?

Would not a joint speech in Philadelphia by both candidates put the spotlight moreso on race relations?

That's the way the cosmopolitan facade crumbles.

In the past few days, I've learned things about black churches I never knew before--like hyperbole is the norm. This does make me understand Wright better, and why maybe it's not such a big deal. But at some point, I wish black churches would take a look at themselves and the preaching style and think about whether it's really helping anything for preachers to use such hyperbole. Can't they preach social justice without resorting to g-d america? Without accusing the gov't of inventing AIDS and injecting it into the black community? Is that really helpful and aren't their some people who believe that crap? Far be it from me to tell anyone else how to worship, but it seems to me that this would only fuel anger and resentment in the black community. How is that good?

Let's hearken back to fall of 1999 when Naderites were told a vote for Nader would be a vote for Bush. How true that turned out to be (even most Naderites came to that conclusion and abandoned him in 2004). However, a caveat I added at that time went like this: a vote for Nader will be a vote to kill at least 1/2 million people of color. How wrong I turned out to be. Bush has killed far more, not only in Iraq but all over the world due to his starving world aide as well as his ethanol and monetary fiasco. (Inflation kills the ultra poor).

Now unfortunately we have a similar situation. A vote for Obama in light of J. Wright, as well as Obama's wife's insulting remarks, makes it impossible for him to win. Impossible. So a vote for Mr. Obama at this point is tantamont to a vote for John McCain which is tantamont to the killing of how many people of color? Obamaites! Control your ultimate narcissism for the sake of the blood of so many people of color.

carry on...

Politics is an ugly game. Because Drudge said so, the instant take on the Obama native garb photo was that the Clinton campaign had passed it around. Clinton's people denied it. Who in the Obama campaign supplied the Reverend Wright-Bill Clinton photo? I didn't see a name in the news story. Was it sanctioned by someone in the campaign, was it someone else who supports Obama? (I ask this because there is a story circulating this morning that another group provided the photo.)

I think that having a photo of Wright attending a Clinton White House function does help to further deflate the issue. After all, maybe no one here heard of Wright before this "scandal" but Bill Clinton did, and thought enough to calculate and triangulate an invitation to him. That says that Wright was recognized as enough of a prominent religious figure by the Clintons to warrant the invitation. So before any of this Wright had a gravitas that was embraced by the former President.

There was an excellent article in Truthdig about the economic benefits that accrue to the rich in devaluing the poor (read: black) through drugs. Drugs and racism. Over the last forty years there have been excellent books written about the US' (specifically its intelligence services) and other governments' involvement in the drug trade. You can start with THE POLITICS OF HEROIN IN SOUTHEAST ASIA, THE GREAT HEROIN COUP and go from there. If anyone examines Wright's words he/she'll find that under the rhetoric are realities that most of the white culture isn't able to come to grips with.

the more I see of Obama, the less I like him. under the charisma and the gloss, he's just another greedy pol.

Nice spin on this story, but your assumption that it "gets worse" because the Obama camp released the story in an attempt to "smear" Hillary betrays your own outsized bias. I believe Obama merely wanted to provide evidence that Wright held significant standing as a minister, and doesn't deserve to be demonized over a few, off-the-cuff - if incendiary - remarks.

The real issue raised by the photo, which you conveniently ignore, is why - if Bill counted on Wright as one of this spiritual supporters during his darkest hours - both he and Hillary don't support the minister when he is undergoing a similarly vicious public maligning?

In addition, it begs the question of when Hillary will address how she will respond to the Republican attack machine when they starting running ads with blue-stained dresses in the General Election, - in the unlikely event she gets the nomination.

If the Clintons want to push the meme that Obama is less electable because of the Wright flap, I for one would like to know - NOW - how she plans on getting average Americans to vote for her once they are reminded of her husband's affair with an intern, and his lies to a Grand Jury and the American public. How many parents of impressionable youngsters really want to see a serial womanizer and sexual predator back in the West Wing?

Bob in Pacifica,

I enjoyed the second half of your comment. This IS the reality of corporate politics. I do agree with some of the more reasonable posters here that we really don't know what OBAMA will do when President.

We know well what Mrs. Clinton (DLC, Wal-Mart) and Mr. McCain will do.

Fortunately in the reality that is the internet and 24-hour cable news, hypocrisy leves a slimy trail!

Bob in Pacifica,

I enjoyed the second half of your comment. This IS the reality of corporate politics. I do agree with some of the more reasonable posters here that we really don't know what OBAMA will do when President.

We know well what Mrs. Clinton (DLC, Wal-Mart) and Mr. McCain will do.

Fortunately in the reality that is the internet and 24-hour cable news, hypocrisy leaves a slimy trail!

It could just be me, but I don't see the photos with Clinton/Wright as a "see, he did it too!" smear, but rather a simple notation that off all the religious clergy in the United States brought in to heal Clinton's intern-screwing soul, Jeremiah Wright was considered highly.

I have to say that I am disturbed by the poster above who suggests that black churches and black ministers should somehow sit back and realize how bad they are for their own community. Please tell me you're joking.

Every time I read someone on this blog saying that the Wright flap has made Obama unelectable (presumably because too many white people will be scared by a candidate intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between rhetoric and reality), I am reminded of that well-known psychological condition known as "projection."

Yes, indeedy, the real reason you fear peddlers say Obama as unelectable is because each of you harbors just a wee little drop of resentment towards those who refuse to acknowledge your superiority based on the color of your skin, that you – in order to justify your ugly bias – assume everyone else possesses as well. Of course they do, otherwise you'd be what...a racist?

Why else frame your posts with "Obama is unelectable because..." instead of "The reason I wouldn't vote for Obama is..."

Fact is, far from unelectable, Obama's combination of moral clarity, honesty, courage and charisma will not only earn him the nomination of his party, it will enable him to destroy McWarmonger in the General Election.

Hopefully, those of you currently in denial about your own racial fears will be able to rise above them come November, and join the fun.

Obama '08! Yes, we can!

I don't know why any Democrat would accept the basic premise of the rightwing/media frame on Jeremiah Wright. What he said was not hateful. His "views" are not so outside the mainstream. His sermon was critical of our government's role in oppressing our black citizens, and in killing innocents abroad. He is angry about these things.

I am angry about these things. But just because a racist hatemonger like Pat Buchanan immediately characterized the reverend's speech as hateful does not make it so. The media has made it so, and Democrats are foolishly accepting that frame. Every story about Wright has some blowdried commentator saying, reflexively, of course, what Wright said was hateful.

No it wasn't. Listen to the larger versions of the 30-second clips that the media has latched on to. They are indictments of this country's racist past, which is not hate. It's anger about the truth.

It's pretty clear to me that the media, and their rightwing embeds like Buchanan, Scarborough and Dobbs (and the dummies who parrot their words) are angry because Wright is angry about the way white-controlled government has treated black people. They want to pretend that racism is all over. Pay no attention to America's history. That's all in the past! (But it's not.) Pay no attention to that little man in the corner, except when he has the temerity to be angry about white racism.

Why are we doing the Republican's bidding for them?

Yes, I am Obama supporter, and you can immediately dismiss my words on that basis. But I'm also a unity Democrat. I'm voting for Hillary if she's the nominee, and I'm not holding my nose or anything like that. We must take back our country. Carrying Republican memes against our own in March isn't going to do us any favors in November.

speaking strictly for myself..i have been saying from the start that obama was unelectable..mainly because he isn't qualified...wright just seals the deal..don't know about all the psyco babble

So what about he "Family" please explain away. We are all about pointing out Mr. Wright fine no problem with that but if so then HRC's spiritual mentor Mr. Coe needs some vetting. As for the picture well if HRC wants to use Wright as a wedge and there is a picture of Mr. Wright and Bill then yes quite correct just let it go, dont bother I mean it is only dirty tricks from Obama campaign as usual...Oh and after the Coe research lets do a little NAFTA revisit, seems a bit more to that but nah just rumors and bitter ex-clitonites surely? As for your source, anyone can find one to match their point but can you honestly sit in indignation all things Obama and claim HRC is utopia when above evidence suggests not? If so please prove to us Mr. Coe is a benevolent pastor, and the meetings in the 90s were HRC gritting her teech for Bill to sell something she didnt want to then fine I will aquiesce...so?

I really have not noticed any significant group of individuals losing body parts from laughing; however, I would expect them to be Republicans. Coupled with the photo of Senator Obama with his extended family--I have not heard who is accused of dumping it in the campaign--the Wright/Clinton photo should distract most Democrats from keeping on message. This should restore confidence to the R's who were choking over John McCain's repeated confusion in remarks about which terrorist group is being supported by Iran. This also should mask the statement that what this country needs is not an understanding of economics, but leadership. The McCain/Bush connection makes Obama/Wright and/or Clinton/Wright look pale and anemic.

Balthus,

Every time I read someone on this blog saying that the Wright flap has made Obama unelectable (presumably because too many white people will be scared by a candidate intelligent enough to be able to distinguish between rhetoric and reality), I am reminded of that well-known psychological condition known as "projection."

Interesting. The ability to distinguish between rhetoric and reality.

Yes, indeedy, the real reason you fear peddlers say Obama as unelectable is because each of you harbors just a wee little drop of resentment towards those who refuse to acknowledge your superiority based on the color of your skin, that you – in order to justify your ugly bias – assume everyone else possesses as well. Of course they do, otherwise you'd be what...a racist?

Nothing I enjoy better than a little pop-psychology.

And your conclusion that it all comes down to bias does not reveal a certain bias on your part because?

Projection indeed.

It's a shame you don't share Obama's ability to distinguish between rhetoric and reality. The anti-Clinton crowd has been shouting that Clinton is "unelectable" since it became apparent that she intended to run. Claiming an opponent is "unelectable" is basic political rhetoric.

But I'm sure my response to your comment is just a cover for my deep seated racial fears, right? It's a lovely technique to stiffle free discussion you have there.

With Obama losing so much of the white vote and Clinton losing so much of the black vote the ONLY way to win in November is for them to share the ticket. And sorry to say to you Barack supporters but the strongest ticket would be Clinton/Obama.
The same voters that voted for Bush twice are not going to pick a candidate that is perceived to be a "down on America" liberal pacifist.
Couple the Wright crap with the already established narrative that he is unpatriotic and you have a candidate that is not electable.

If Obama was VP than he could possibly get shielded from these specious charges because traditionally the VP isn't the focus of a presidential race come November.
Hillary/Obama'08

Good news! A new FOX poll shows only 24% of Americans believe Obama shares the views of Rev. Wright, and only a third of voters (35%) say the flaps has caused them to have doubts about the Senator. This, after a full-week, non-stop, unrelentingly negative media barrage that would have sunk any other candidate. Now, with Obama having effectively stoppd the bleeding, with the news cycle turning in his favor, and several weeks to gain his footing once again, the already less-than-impressive negative numbers will inevitably drop, and Obama will sustain little if any lasting damage.

Time to move on...to the real pressing question of the day. Why is Hillary not conceding when (with MI and FL off the table) she has no chance to win? Her attacks on our eventual candidate, and her supportive comments about McCain, are only hurting Democratic chances in November! Come on superdelegates, do the new math, and come forward for Obama!

This, after a full-week, non-stop, unrelentingly negative media barrage that would have sunk any other candidate.

You mean to say it would have rendered any other candidate...."unelectable"?

Hey TSL -

Think "the same voters that voted for Bush twice are not going to pick a candidate that is perceived to be a "down on America" liberal pacifist."?

Ignoring the fact that no poll I've seen shows that people perceive Obama the way you describe, isn't the real question whether, "the same voters that voted for Bush twice are going to pick a candidate whose husband seduced an intern into providing oral sex while in the White House, lied to a Grand Jury and the American public about it, disgraced the office of the President, and threw a steaming heap of immorality into the laps of parents of impressionable children?"

Just asking. 'Cause the Clintons may be able to sweep this question under the rug during the primary, but it won't stay there during the General. Unelectable? Just wait until the right wing attack machine reminds voters that Hillary in office means Bill back in the West Wing.

I'm with Truth. I'm glad someone really said it. As a white liberal, I sometimes share half or more of the views that Wright said that were so "offensive." I'm not offended by saying "damn" the U.S. It's a NATION STATE, not a human being. It doesn't have a soul. It's an abstract, legal construction, not a person. It can't actually be damned, you know? So, yeah, 200+ plus years of legalizing and politically excusing racist claptrap, DAMN the U.S. for it! How is that offensive? At times I think, FUCK the U.S., particularly with Bush in charge. It doesn't mean I hate my country, it means I got riled up. The next day or even as I'm saying it, I may still be grateful to live in this country and for the life I have here. I'm not calling for a nuclear strike by the Russians or invasion by the Chinese, you know? What Wright said isn't so wrong or so shocking, and the people making all the right-wing talking points over this can go shove it.

Posted this on a prev. thread but it might fit better here.

Once again it saddens me to see Clinton or Obama fans threaten to not vote for the other in the general election.

We are coming off eight years of the worst administration in the history of this republic. If the religous right and the neocons cont. in power I frankly fear for our future and do not want to live any longer in such a country.

DO NOT forget what is at stake in November. I support Obama for many reasons I have given in the past and cont. to do so. If Mrs. Clinton gets the nod in Nov. I will give money, work, and vote for her and so should all Obama supporters. The stakes are always high but after the last eight years I think this election is a battle for the country's very soul.

Don't you nimrods screw this up because of spite or sour grapes DON'T YOU DARE!

Eric in Austin

well well..a gen u ine god fearing clinton hater..i don't really think at this point that anyone has forgotten who hillary is married to..and make no mistake..bill clinton giot a bj and lied..but it was republicans..for political reasons..who threw the steaming heap of immorality into the worlds laps..while a bunch of them were doing the same thing...hypocrites

Brian,

I don't think to many "white liberals" are terribly offended by the Rev. Wright's sermons. But I don't think Obama is gonna have to much of a problem attracting the "white liberal" vote against John McCain in the fall.

yeah..it's everyone else he is gonna have a problem with

Hey Snark - I take your point. Allow me to rephrase... This, after a full-week, non-stop, unrelentingly negative media barrage that would have turned me off to any candidate any less forthright, intelligent, ethical and appealing than Obama."

BTW, since presumably you are a Clinton supporter, how do you see her winning the nomination? Do you really think the superdelegates will over-rule the popular electoral vote, putting an end to the candidacy of the first ever viable African-American presidential candidate? Think of the consequences...the millions of African-Americans who would wash their hands of a party for which they've been the reliable base for many, many years. And, of course, the millions of young people getting involved in politics - miraculously - for the first time, most drawn to Obama, who are the future of the Party and our long-term hope to keep the evil Republicans at bay. A superdelegate overturning of the popular votge would surely lower their turnout this election, and most probably deter many of them from ever getting involved in politics - at least Democratic politics - again.

Hey baltus...I think Bill could win in November if he was on the ballot. And just to point out to you, in case you did know this already, that Hillary didn't have an affair in the White House.

And on your other point, no there is no poll suggesting that Obama is "down on America". But he has had to fight all the Internet rumors that have circulated well before the Wright controversy which only adds to the narrative.
Hold your nose and tune into Sean or Rush for a few minutes and you will get a preview of coming attractions. If Kerry the war hero is un American than Obama, who has not served, nor even picked up a hunting rifle, will be unrecognizable come November. McCain conservative war hero, Obama elite "hate America" first liberal. You decide.
Of course we all know the narrative about Hillary...power hungry, cold bitch but no one is going to question her toughness, or why she didn't serve or hunt. (which I believe is a lot of BS anyway but hey I didn't vote for Bush, either of them).
Just saying.

Dennis - Exactly my point. The Republicans made a huge issue of it, and will undoubtedly do so again. What your response doesn't address is how the issue is going to play in November, how unelectable it might make Hillary, or how she is going to handle the inevitable nasty attack when it comes.

I, for one, as a lifelong Democrat and a non-Hillary hater would sure like to know BEFORE she gets nominated...just as I've seen Obama respond to what I consider an unfair attack that many feel could harm his chances in November. Why not you? If electability is the issue, shouldn't we scrutinize Hillary's vulnerabilities as closely as we do Obama's?

barack obama has to be so much more then the first afro american presidential candidate..thats not enough ...regardless of who that offends if he doesn't get..he has to be undeniably qualified and he has to be able to win it...his main claim to fame is his judgement..because of a speech on the war he gave when he was not an office holder..and when he elected ..he voted the same way hillary did..his short record in the senate does not show a penchant for hard work...his judgement now is very questionable...at the very least..

"I have always thought incendiary language to be a tactic of the far right and talk radio, who use bombast, not reasoned logic, to get their points across."

Apparently you haven't spent much time on dKos, Talking Points Memo, or any of the "big" progressive sites within the past few months then, bobbieharv. The loathsome comments and innuedo incorporated above in balthus's posts make a lot of what has been said on those sites look balanced and thoughtful.

The level of venom directed at HRC and her supporters has been pretty discouraging. And all too often the source material -- the proof -- that was used to attack HRC came from Matt Drudge, Faux News, Newsmax, etc.

BTW, since presumably you are a Clinton supporter...

I do believe Clinton would be a better president but I'm not actively supporting one over the other. I will gladly vote for either come November.

...how do you see her winning the nomination?

Which ever one wins the nomination it will be with the support of the super delegates. There is no other path for either one.

Do you really think the superdelegates will over-rule the popular electoral vote,...

I'm not interested in predicting how the super delegates will vote. If the party wanted to make sure that the nominee was a result of the "popular electoral vote" they would run the primaries in a much different way and they would never have created super delegates.

...putting an end to the candidacy of the first ever viable African-American presidential candidate?

I thought this wasn't about race. I thought it was about choosing the best candidate to represent the Party and choosing the best candidate for the job. Frankly, I hope that is in the forefront of the thinking of all the super delegates. Not Senator Obama's race.

Think of the consequences...the millions of African-Americans who would wash their hands of a party for which they've been the reliable base for many, many years.

And that's gonna help the millions of African-Americans how? Barack Obama has a long political career in front of him. If he loses this nomination battle he'll be in prime position for the next opening in either 4 or 8 years. I'm intelligent enough to understand that.

And, of course, the millions of young people getting involved in politics - miraculously - for the first time, most drawn to Obama, who are the future of the Party and our long-term hope to keep the evil Republicans at bay.

Not much of a future or a long term hope if they stomp their feet and storm off in a huff because their prefered candidate doesn't get the nomination.

A superdelegate overturning of the popular votge would surely lower their turnout this election, and most probably deter many of them from ever getting involved in politics - at least Democratic politics - again.

And I should put so much faith in such a fickle bunch why?

However the super delegates decide to use their votes will be fine with me. I'm intent on defeating the Republicans in the fall regardless of who the party's candidate is. The stakes are high. If the African-American community and the young voters don't get that it's too bad. Perhaps you should consider using your energies to reinforce that idea with them rather than worrying about Bill Clinton's penis.

eric in austin,

agree completely!

Hey TSL -

We don't need - and no matter who is our candidate, will never get - the 30% of American dead-enders still cheering for Bush or relying on Fox to brainwash them. And McWarMonger's credibility on Iraq? Please! He voted to get us into the war that most Americans believe was a mistake and want us out of - same as Hillary. Heck, just this week he's proven he can't even keep the forces in the Middle East straight!

If you think a Bush-idolizing war monger, who wants to keep us in Iraq forever, has already admitted he has virtually no knowledge of economic issues (which will be the big issue of the fall campaign) and speaks like a wooden post except when he's popping off and going red in the face in an embarrassingly non-presidential way, can defeat Obama you might want to reconsider your analysis.

Come November, Democrats are going to hold he upper hand, most Americans will agree with us on the issues, we will have more money, the country will be eager for a change, the Republicans will have many more seats to defend (spreading their meager resources even further), much of their base won't bother to vote for a candidate they consider too liberal, and come the debates the contrast between Obama and McGeezer will be so stark it will be laughable.

Time to get on board, man, and stop backing a candidate who will only drag the country backwards, energize our opponents and hurt our down-ticket candidates. The Obama train is headed toward victory, and change is a comin'.

obama's future..should he be the nominee and lose is over....i have been a democrat all my life...and never thought that i would feel this way...i will not vote for barack obama for president...if democrats go down this road..by not counting all the votes..i am done with the party

Hey World Upside Down -

Before continueing to slag me, would you mind citing a single "loathsome" comment I made...not one that you don't simply disagree with, but you find factually in error?

And what statement of mine contained any "innuendo"? I've tried to stick to facts and be clear about how I feel, curious to hear specifically where you read otherwise.

Thanks!

Whoa Snark! Seems I've touched a nerve...being the reality of the road ahead. Because all of your answers eloquently address how you would LIKE the superdelegate politics to play out, and why you think they SHOULD play out the way you want (a fair bit of which I agree with), but my question was really about how you think they WILL play out.

And you really didn't really address that, resorting instead to a cheap, personal attack (hmmmm...why does that sound familiar?)

So I'll try again. If the reality is that the clock isn't going to be turned back, and superdelegates are going to make the decision at least for this election, and it is highly unlikely they will overturn the popular delegate vote, how do you justify supporting the HRC campaign when it seems to exist for no other purpose than to damage the man who will be carrying our banner in November?

Dennis:

It's time to be an adult. You would really not vote in this election or vote for Mccain if Clinton isn't the winner here? How silly, and how dumb can you be? If you don't see that both Clinton and Obama are in a different solar system on the important issues facing this country than Mccain then you vote for president like you used to vote for "most popular" in junior high.

We need you to grow up and understand how important this election is for the country. If you can't do that then by all means stay home. Let the adults do the heavy lifting and you go back to watching "jackass" remakes.

Eric in Austin

Yeah Dennis! You are true Democrat and Patriot! Thanks for sticking by the party and the country when we will need you most!

BTW, you do know that MI and FL votes don't count because their legislatures broke party rules and held their primaries earlier than the party wanted. Also, that neither candidate campaigned in either state. Also, that Harold Ickes, one of Clinton's closest advisors, helped shape the penalty the states would suffer if they broke the rules. Also, that neither Obama or Hillary have it in their power - and shouldn't - to change the rules, and that the Hillary campaign didn't have any issue with the MI and FL not counting until she fell so far behind in the primary that she became desperate for votes.

One last question - since you are so outraged about being disenfranchised, where you were when your state legislature moved your primary up, knowing full well the consequences if they did? If you care so much now, why didn't you then?

To all ye Left Coasters - It's been fun here on leftcoaster today, and I hope I've stirred the pot a little pot and perhaps gotten some people to rethink their positions. And I truly do deplore what I see as the slimy politics of the Clinton campaign, and truly do believe that Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate who could really turn this country around and help us deal with the seemingly intractable problems our country faces - from global warning to health care to ending the war and restoring our credibility abroad. But in the end, as Eric in Austin has so eloquently put it, the differences between Clinton and Obama pale in comparison to our need to overturn the Republican regime, and to restore our country to the values inscribed in our Constitution. Come November, I will support whoever wins the Democratic nomination, and no matter how partisan the primary bickering may be, I encourage everyone on this site to join arms in November.

I have to say that I am disturbed by the poster above who suggests that black churches and black ministers should somehow sit back and realize how bad they are for their own community. Please tell me you're joking.

I was asking a question--why is this kind of hyperbole acceptable to the congregation? I'd ask the same of white congregations where preachers preach crazy nutty stuff, but (call me a bigot) I just don't expect better from loony fringe fundamentalist congregants. I just kind of write them off as non-thinking. But the black churches--I'm just trying to understand.

If the Obama campaign agrees with some its posters here that they have the nomination in the bag, they certainly aren't acting like it. They are acting like they are running scared. Perhaps they understand something their supporters don't.

what i said is that i will not vote for barack obama if he is the nominee..if the democratic party nominates him with out counting all the votes..i am done with the party and it's picking losers...if all the votes are counted... all..and he has the popular vote..i will reconsider..barack obama will not beat john mccain

Whoa Snark! Seems I've touched a nerve...being the reality of the road ahead.

Huh?

Because all of your answers eloquently address how you would LIKE the superdelegate politics to play out, and why you think they SHOULD play out the way you want

Did I really do that? I expressed the opinion that they need not only consider the "popular vote" and the hope that they would consider more than Barack Obama's race. I expressed no preference for them deciding one over the other.

but my question was really about how you think they WILL play out.

I think it depends on how the primary season plays out from here. Were I a super delegate, feeling as I do about the two candidates, I would not be commiting myself to either one right now. So I'm not gonna try and mind read the super delegates. If that answer is not satisfactory to you then to bad.

And you really didn't really address that, resorting instead to a cheap, personal attack (hmmmm...why does that sound familiar?)

Who did I personally attack? If you are concerned about the Democratic Party losing the AA and youth vote perhaps you should be focusing on keeping them in the fold regardless of which candidate gets the nomination rather than focusing on the sins of Bill Clinton. How is that a personal attack? A bit thin skinned for a guy who's been offering up wisdom about the racial motivations of white people.

So I'll try again.

Until you get an answer you like?

If the reality is that the clock isn't going to be turned back, and superdelegates are going to make the decision at least for this election, and it is highly unlikely they will overturn the popular delegate vote, how do you justify supporting the HRC campaign

Because it's a very close contest. Neither has crossed the 2025 delegate threshold required to secure the nomination. The primaries are not over and Clinton holds a strong lead in the Pennsylvania polls, the largest delegate state left. She has the potential to reduce Obama's delegate and "popular vote" advantage. In which case I think the super delegates should weigh all the positives and negatives of each candidate and make their choice. People like to use the expression "overturn the popular delegate vote/decision" but there has been no "popular delegate decision". If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had 2025 "popular delegates" there would be a "popular delegate" decision. But they do not. So there has not. As such the super delegates are empowered to make "the decision" as they see fit. They will not be overturning anything if they decide to support Hillary Clinton.

...when it seems to exist for no other purpose than to damage the man who will be carrying our banner in November?

According to you.

how doe one equate blaming hillary for what bill did..and the relationship between barack and his pastor..where is the rationale?

I retract this part of my earlier comment:

"- Were I an Obama advisor, I absolutely would recommend running the Wright/Bill Clinton photo. I would do it to blunt Hillary Clinton's campaign's hints at the Wright attack angle and hopefully to stop them from trying to use it."

Apologies, I don't have enough information to support making that statement.

Another example of Sen."Hope's" continuing to
play "new" politics? Nothing new here, same "ole" politics. Moreover, Rev.Wright was one of more
than 100 invited to the "Breakfast". Obama cam-
paign is clinging. Does he equate that photo to the same as his membership of more than 20years?
Oh brother! We need some serious help with in-
teligence matters. Next tactic...

Of course you want to believe that they knew nothing of his views or who he was when he showed up at their door that day. Rev. Wright just managed to get one of the golden tickets in a Wonka bar and thats how he got into the White House that day, because we all know how easy it is to score an invite to lunch with the President of the United States on any given day.

The point is that he was then and still is a respected figure in the black community in Chicago. He was invited there because the Clintons felt they needed his support in Bill's time of crisis. He obviously rated high enough to sit alongside Hillary while Bill offered up his mea culpa. (See the picture on Americablog) An accident? Hardly.

It is hardly a sleazeball move to show that the guy is not the demagogue you would like him to be. Even Mike Huckabee cuts him some slack.

yes, warbucks. makes perfect sense- he was one of hundreds, but they knew everything he stood for. of course. and huckabee cuts him slack? well, that should be good enough for everyone!

You certainly don't know everything he stands for, but based on soundbites alone you're prepared to rip him apart anyway notwithstanding the many positive things his congregation says he has done for his community or his church.

At least your M.O. is consistent with your candidate of choice. Kitchen sink and all that . . .

The photo op is a non story. Everyone knew that Wright was a well known mininster throughout the Black Community as a whole in this country. I knew who he was and I grew up in California. What I DIDN'T KNOW was what kind of "preaching" he did. The fact that he was at a White House dinner with other ministers doesn't really mean much. It also has NOTHING to do with Barrack Obama's relationship to Wright. What makes this photo even more pathetic is that it came DIRECTLY from the Obama campaign. That's pretty desperate. It's a sad attempt to divert from the Wright-Obama story which is a real one.

And I have now heard ENTIRE sermons of Rev. Wright. The sad part is that in 60% of his sermons, his preaching is thoughtful and on target. What's tragic is that there's even more hateful stuff that the media has yet to report on. It's sad that he felt that it was okay to preach that way.

Kacey,

Yes, like you, I've listened to much more of Rev. Wright's sermons than most people posting here. They are indeed infected by hatefulness, and this has been a long-term condition for him despite the urgency of denial exhibited by the Obama supporters.

Not only that, but I'll go further. This hatefulness and bigotry is not just about Rev. Wright - it represents the congregation and the church itself. Just look at the website and materials propagated by the church.

The other day, I listened to an NPR interview with the new pastor for Trinity Church - sadly, it didn't go over any better than Wright. The new reverend made continual excuses for Wright's screeds, and it was obvious he agreed with much of them. Further, the new reverend saw the controversy as a great opportunity to find "more souls to save". Yikes.

People need to be honest about what this church really stands for. I wish Obama didn't support it but he does.

in a recent interview..barack described his grandmother as a typical white person.......??anyone want to tell me what he meant by that??..this is one typical white person who is starting to have some very serious doubts about him