Don't agree with you here, Turk.
Obama was carefully parsing his statements about Wright, trying to convey a false impression.
What did he know and when did he know it?
It would be helpful if Obama clarified his statements. Technically, he wasn't lying and he didn't contradict himself, I agree. But some of those speeches by Wright were recent and others were years ago. I find it hard to believe that Obama didn't know about some of the speeches that were publicized, such as the one after 9/11.
I believe that Obama should resolve the differences between his two statements.
Posted by joanneleon at March 22, 2008 03:00 PMI think Obama invites attacks on his honesty concerning which of Wright's "sermons" he has heard because he is deliberately being very vague in his answers in order to create enough plausible deniability should more tapes or evidence come out.
Obama has been very unforthcoming concerning his knowledge of Wright's anti-American and anti-White "sermons".
"we ducked under sniper fire" this is words by Hillary in a recent campaign speech describing her fearful arrival in Bonsia to conduct emmm peace talks, with her teen age child by her side.
Excpept for the little girl greeting her (video can be seen everywhere), no snipers in sight.
The Republicans are going to use all of this spiteful slop.
This is the Democratic Presidential election we are talkling about, this tit for tat childish nonsense is sickening.
3 more American soldiers died today bringing the total to 4,000 dead for lies in an unjust war. We need to win in Novemeber stop and discuss issues.
IOW - Obama isn't lying because even though he admits hearing controversial statements, he didn't admit to hearing the particular statements at issue.
That begs the question - What were the statements that Obama heard?
Posted by myiq2xu at March 22, 2008 03:36 PMChief of firm involved in breach is Obama adviser
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.
Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January.
When asked about the contribution, a State Department official told CNN's Zain Verjee, "We ethically awarded contracts. Political affiliation is not one of the factors that we check."
(snip...
please don't post entire articles. thanks.
turkana)
Posted by jeter at March 22, 2008 03:39 PMI think your point is well made. In this campaign, regardless of which side you are on, one must be really cautious after listening to pundits and watching these 10 sec sound/video bites. The pundits have motives that generally conflict with electing a qualified person. Their interests are their own advancement and the platform used to express their cleverness. You really have to go to the source and get a big chunk of the context to make an honest assessment. Otherwise we're just on auto pilot, reconfirming our already existing opinion of candidate X and candidate y.
Posted by TSL at March 22, 2008 03:43 PMReally
Posted by jeter at March 22, 2008 03:48 PMThere is another level to this "controversy" and that is the question of whether Obama's pastor Rev. Wright has actually made controversial or hateful remarks to begin with. My answer to that is "no", and I have not been an Obama supporter. Anyone who wants to invest a little time and energy can learn more about Rev. Wright's sermons. Only dishonest or stupid media talking heads and wingnuts who think everything America does is right and wonderful would consider his remarks so controversial. In addition, Rev. Wright invariably moves beyond justified outrage over injustice, whether it be the 9/11 attack on America which he described as a "tragedy" or America's own transgressions, to the principles of truthful self-criticism, humility, love and forgiveness that he is teaching his church members. There is no "there" there in this phony controversy. It is understood by Rev. Wright's followers that, sadly, Obama had to distance himself somewhat from Rev. Wright for political reasons, but in truth there was no real reason to do so. To learn more see a blog by a Trinity UCC member with a longer video of Rev. Wright than the edited version seen on NBC, Fox, etc.:
http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/
DeanOR,
Um, no -- not a phony controversy. Do your homework and/or stop lying. Among other things Rev. Wright has said:
- the HIV virus was intentionally introduced by the U.S. government to the black community for the purpose of genocide.
- Bill Clinton did the dirty riding to the black community just as he did with Monica and Hillary (while humping the pulpit).
- Natalie Holloway died because she was a loose woman.
- 3000 innocent civilians died on 9/11 because it was the U.S. fault and we deserved it.
- and let's not forget printing text from Hamas in the church bulletin.
Get a grip. I'm sick of people trivializing this lunatic crap. It is unbelievable that you accuse others of being dishonest. You and all the others making excuses for Wright and for Obama supporting that church are the ones being dishonest.
Posted by at March 22, 2008 08:10 PMaccording to a new poll by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion.
First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama’s pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama’s speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”
Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)
The poll was conducted March 19 among 1,051 Americans. After filtering out those not aware of Rev. Wright and Obama’s speech about him, the sample is 807, for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%. The data have been weighted for age, race, gender and partisan affiliation.
***
Rasmussen has Obama's unfavorable at 51%.
***
Kerry said that a President Obama would help the US, in relations with Muslim countries, "in some cases go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise."
"He has the ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism," Kerry said. "To maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion."
Kerry was asked what gives Obama that credibility.
"Because he's African-American. Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country."
An African-American president would be "a symbol of empowerment" for those who have been disenfranchised around the world, Kerry said, "an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything."
h/t ABC.com
I especially loved this from Senator Kerry..."Because he's a black man. Who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country." When has Senator Obama faced any of this? Seems his education and family background doesn't indicate the battles others have had to fight. If Kerry was being specific...he missed this boat by far...it must have been just too swift for him.
Posted by peter at March 22, 2008 10:18 PMOnce again, people seem to miss the point of a blog. I totally agree about false parsing. I've seen it done to Obama, and more often to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. I just disagree somewhat in this instance. I watched Obama in an interview that media matters apparently didn't see in which he said that he never heard "controversial" statements in church (I saw it played once on CNN and again I think on Dan Abrams show). That's separate from him saying that he didn't hear the SPECIFIC remarks that everyone has been talking about and I actually believe him when he says he wasn't in church on those days. I believe he realized his mistake and knew that people would start looking to see when he was in church, that's why he said that he had heard controversial remarks in church when he gave the speech. If I saw the video twice, I'm sure it can be found somewhere on the net.
Posted by kacey at March 23, 2008 03:10 PM