Media figures claimed McCain would avoid issue of Obama's pastor -- but McCain campaign had already circulated op-ed
SUMMARY: On MSNBC, Steve Thomma asserted that Sen. John McCain's campaign is "not going to touch" controversial comments by the former pastor of Sen. Barack Obama's church. On Morning Joe, McCain adviser Charlie Black declined to comment on Wright's statements, saying that McCain has said that "these candidates cannot be held accountable for all the views of people who endorse them or people who befriend them." Later on MSNBC, Chuck Todd noted Black's comments. However, the McCain campaign had already circulated to reporters a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which Ronald Kessler wrote that "Obama's close association with Mr. Wright ... raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country," which "deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far."
During the 2 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on March 14, McClatchy Newspapers chief Washington correspondent Steve Thomma discussed controversial comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Sen. Barack Obama's church, and asserted that Sen. John McCain's campaign is "not going to touch this," claiming: "Oh boy, certainly John McCain doesn't have to say a word. You know the old rule in politics, 'When your enemy is killing himself, don't get in the way.' And that's the case with the McCain campaign. They're not gonna touch this; they're not gonna go anywhere near it." But contrary to Thomma's remarks, McCain did "touch this." As ABCNews.com's The Note reported, the McCain campaign had already circulated to reporters a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which Newsmax.com chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler wrote that "Obama's close association with Mr. Wright ... raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country," which "deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far."
At 10:03 a.m. ET on March 14, the Politico's Jonathan Martin also reported that the McCain campaign "included an op-ed from the WSJ written by Ron Kessler about Obama's pastor today in its morning clips." Subsequently, McCain's campaign reportedly said it sent the op-ed "in error."
During an interview that morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe with host Joe Scarborough, McCain chief political adviser Charlie Black declined to comment on Wright's statements, saying that McCain has said that "these candidates cannot be held accountable for all the views of people who endorse them or people who befriend them" and instead "should be held accountable for their public policy views." During the 9 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live, NBC News political director Chuck Todd echoed Black's assertion, stating: "I think the thing is, is in the long run, I mean, I saw that Charlie Black interview earlier with you guys on Morning Joe, where he made the point, 'You know what, at the end of the day, you almost can't hold the candidates responsible for some of the views of their supporters,' and in the long run, that's gonna be the case."
Atlantic blogger and associate editor Marc Ambinder also noted that the McCain campaign had circulated the op-ed, a move that was inconsistent with what Black had said on Morning Joe:
I've never gone ga-ga for guilt-by-association assassinations, but it seems to be that if one campaign is willing to make an issue out of one's associations, they should be open to questions about their own.
And, in truth, some associations are more meaningful than others. Barack Obama's close friendship with, his intellectual debt to, and the spiritual advice he's gotten from Rev. Jeremiah Wright almost pre-books that 60 Minutes interview you know he'll do in the fall explaining it.
But John McCain needs be careful.
As J-Mart notes this morning, McCain's campaign included Ron Kessler's WSJ op-ed in its clips, which implies that they believe reporters should make a note of it. But as his colleague B-Smith later noted, that conflicts with what McCain strategist Charlie Black (C-Black?) told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC this morning -- namely, that "I don't think Senator McCain wants to get in the middle of a discussion about Senator Obama's former pastor or his faith."
More, from Black:
"He believes that people who endorse you, people who befriend you are entitled to their own views, but you are not held personally accountable."
As Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, the media routinely characterize McCain as a candidate who avoids negative campaigning, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on March 14:
MONICA NOVOTNY (anchor): Now, Jill, as we've said, this isn't the first that we're hearing of Reverend Wright. But in the wake of Samantha Power and Geraldine Ferraro and a lot of talk about, among other things, race in this race, does this story have legs right now?
JILL ZUCKMAN (Chicago Tribune reporter): Oh, sure it does, Monica. And in fact, the Obama campaign has known that this was an issue for a long, long time. On the night before Senator Obama was going to announce his presidential campaign in Springfield, Illinois, he had to call his pastor and say, "You know what, I don't want you to offer up a prayer at this, this whole ceremony. This wouldn't be a good idea."
I mean, it was a very hard thing for him to do. But they realized, I think at the last minute, that the pastor was so controversial, that people would just seize on that, and they're doing it anyway. I was just talking to a Republican strategist who said that they are going to -- if Obama is the Democratic nominee, they are gonna hammer him on everything his pastor has said in the general election.
NOVOTNY: And, Steve, that was going to be my next question for you. We haven't heard a reaction yet -- don't know if we will -- from the Clinton campaign to these comments, but will the Republicans going forward?
THOMMA: Oh boy, certainly John McCain doesn't have to say a word. You know the old rule in politics, "When your enemy is killing himself, don't get in the way." And that's the case with the McCain campaign. They're not gonna touch this; they're not gonna go anywhere near it. They're gonna count on the news media and other interest groups to bring it up. And it's got a viral quality on the Internet. The YouTubes of these sermons are gonna get around without any help from the Republican National Committee.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on March 14:
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, you could say McCain's at an advantage. The Dems seem to be doing his work for him. Given what we've seen today, there is an argument for that. Let's talk now to NBC News political director Chuck Todd for today's "First Read on Politics."
Chuck, good morning. I'm -- you know, today, the top talkers have been really surrounding this pastor for Barack Obama and comments that he made that seem very inflammatory. And yesterday it was Geraldine Ferraro and the issue of race. Is all this back and forth for the Dems gonna end up benefiting McCain in the long run?
TODD: And don't forget two weeks ago, it was some talk radio hosts --
BRZEZINSKI: Exactly.
TODD: -- who was supporting John McCain. I mean, I think the thing is, is in the long run, I mean, I saw that Charlie Black interview earlier with you guys on Morning Joe, where he made the point, "You know what, at the end of the day, you almost can't hold the candidates responsible for some of the views of their supporters," and in the long run, that's gonna be the case.
The only trouble spot I think here for Obama on Reverend Wright -- I mean, I think in some ways this is getting overblown -- but the one trouble spot is gonna be, if he's the nominee, is with some Jewish voters. There has been some issues with some Jewish voters about Reverend Wright, about Louis Farrakhan, and some things like that.
And electorally, let's just look at the blunt electoral map, a loss of some Jewish voters from the Democratic column to the Republican column could make Florida out of reach. And that is the one place where I think Obama -- and every week, he has been trying to heal these wounds, make sure that Jewish voters -- he meets with them, he meets with a lot of Jewish leaders a lot to try to fix this, because he doesn't want this to become a problem in the general.
From the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: I want to show you a clip from Barack Obama's pastor; it's getting a lot of play right now. This has to do with September 11th and Barack Obama's spiritual adviser blaming September 11th on America. Take a look.
WRIGHT [video clip]: We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards.
SCARBOROUGH: Is John McCain troubled by the fact that that man we just heard -- and my gosh, there's so many more sermons just like that, just as inflammatory -- but is John McCain concerned that that man is Barack Obama's, quote, "spiritual adviser"?
BLACK: You know, what Senator McCain has said repeatedly is that these candidates cannot be held accountable for all the views of people who endorse them or people who befriend them. And fortunately, I heard your report earlier that Senator Obama has repudiated these very unusual views. But what John McCain believes is that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for their public policy views, the things we've described before, big government versus smaller government.
SCARBOROUGH: So this isn't an issue for John McCain?
BLACK: I don't think Senator McCain wants to get in the middle of a discussion about Senator Obama's former pastor or his faith. He believes that people who endorse you, people who befriend you are entitled to their own views, but you are not held personally accountable -- that when somebody endorses you or befriends you, they're embracing your views, the candidate's views, not the other way around.















Fact is, the left has and will continue to make strong associations between who they see as unseemly and McCain. I'm sure this was no mistake from some underling in the McCain camp, but also easily distanced to a large degree by the 'apology'.
Reminds me of Craig Livingstone peeking through some of those 700 FBI files that mysteriously showed up at the Whitehouse in 1995...When it was postulated that this could not have been part of an attempt by the Clintons to get secret info about their enemies......It was described as a 'bureacratic snafu'. That's all this editorial sharing was....A 'bureacratic snafu'!
Kernal,
You be slippin. With anything Clinton, anything is believable!
I was just making the point that politics has been, is, and will be a nasty business. Each side will be exploiting these kinds of opportunities to put forward information and then make the expected denials...They are the 'bureaucratic sanfus' so wonderfully named by the Clintons.
With anything Clinton, anything is believable!
Refreshingly honest of you to admit that you'll believe anything on certain subjects. Most people don't flat out admit to being such suckers.
The point is (documented above) , McCain smeared and lied. That "reminded" you of something about Clinton that you provided no evidence of.I'm all ears.And if you just want to change the subject again to tell me what your new point is, don't bother, it's boring and it's been done.
KFC,
As I noted, some underling probably allowed this information via an editorial written by someone from Nesmax, to be passed along to other media outlets. The 'McCain Campaign' then stated that they wanted none of this kind of politiking, a convenient distancing strategy. Here's a similar one from good 'ole Hill's camp from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1
"Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.
The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.
Clinton has attacked Obama for having occasionally voted "present" as an Illinois state legislator when it came to contentious legislation."
As far as proving my imagination regarding Clinton, Livingstone and those 700 FBI files...(sometimes people complain here when I post evidence because they don't like to see facts. Not so for you Colonel)
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/fbi.files/
Proudcon , this is the last line of the article you linked to;
Where will it all lead? Stay tuned.
Meaning nothing was resolved, it was all speculation, except to the stoopidest target audience.
You might also notice the number of question marks in the bit of "journalism" you linked to.I recently had to point out to a manic Climate Change denier that a pile of exclamation points in a "scientific" article wasn't a good sign. A sign of bad journalism is a lot of question marks in the item. The journalist's job is to ask those questions, and provide some answers.
Just for fun, go to your link, and count the question marks. That's speculation, and sleaze, designed to fool the gullible (that's you)
You're welcome.
"So let me get this straight. Obama denounces the words from his pastor. McCain embraces the controversial people supporting him. Obama is still being castigated, and it's OK?"
Did McCain attend Hagee's church for the last 20 years? Did he get married by Hagee? Did McCain's kids get baptized by Hagee? NO!! Obama denounces the words of his racist pastor but continues to attend his racist church and let's the racist pastor baptize his kids in racist bull. I should hope he is castigated. If McCain attended a racist church run by a racist pastor would you feel better about McCain?
You're right, McCain should withdraw from this election because he doesn't attend the church of a racist pastor!
You're right, McCain should withdraw from this election because he doesn't attend the church of a racist pastor!
No, silly person. MaCain need only to speak out AGAINST the words of controversial persons who endorse him.
"What IS important is the connections made among those gathered to share/ discuss/ argue/ realize/empathize/ about their experinces and feelings about what it is to be spiritual. "
Yes, it's important that everyone at that church gathers together to discuss/share/argue/realize/empathize their racism experiences as told by the racist preacher. That will make for a very freindly, equality seeking congregation, huh? I think just the opposite will happen, they are being taught to be racists and the ones that like that message stay there and the ones that don't like a racist message leave that church. That's how I chose my church; I listened to the message of the preacher and if it didn't teach Christian standards then I found a different church that did.
I don't know, but I suspect WHY all those who attend that church stay there. Probably because they like the message being taught. Whether it's Christian or not does not seem to be a priority to them.
Did you just wake up? Seriously...
First you AGREE with what I said then in the next sentence say that would CAUSE unfriendliness within the church. That is, of course, pure speculation because you have NO IDEA what it does (hint: check out ACTUAL parishoners quotes of the church- they seem friendly and rational).
Then you continue with 'I don't know' and 'I think' as if those hammers of logic are suppossed to beat down any differing opinion. THEN you still say it's a racist church (again, with no documentation- and without telling us why people of different races congregate there together in peace and harmony) and that people MUST stay there BECAUSE it's racist. You could also just as easily say because the church provides day care for little kids, then OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE there goes there because of day care. What's that you say? Maybe not everyone has kids and, thus, may choose to go there for OTHER reasons? Hmmm... interesting- perhaps we should explore that line of thought a little more deeply.
I WILL grant you that some people DO leave a church because of ONLY what a 'spirtual advisor' says while some stay at a church because of a MYRIAD of factors, not just because of ONE criterion. That being said, go educate yourself about the church and it's people using facts, quotes, experience, research, etc. Now go sip some coffee and GO GET 'EM, brother!
Obama denounces the words of his racist pastor but continues to attend his racist church and let's the racist pastor baptize his kids in racist bull.
So called racist is a United States Marine. Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Marine Corps, private first class, 1961-63; U.S. Navy, hospital corpsman third class, 1964-67.
So called racists Rev. served his country. Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Marine Corps, private first class, 1961-63; U.S. Navy, hospital corpsman third class, 1964-67.
Racist church? Any proof? NO I didn't think so.
Again so called racist Rev. as a United States Marine. Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Marine Corps, private first class, 1961-63; U.S. Navy, hospital corpsman third class, 1964-67.
Again so called racist Rev. served his country. Military/Wartime Service: U.S. Marine Corps, private first class, 1961-63; U.S. Navy, hospital corpsman third class, 1964-67.
So, the reverand being a "vet" precludes him from being a racist? Nah, I don't think so. And, IMHO, if that's the only reason you can come up with to prove he isn't racist, then you've pretty much admitted he's a racist. I served my country and many still think I'm racist, what's your point?
Is the church racist? Well, Michelle seems to agree with what the pastor is teaching and you heard what she thinks of America, recently. I think if the rest of the congregation believes half of what the racist teaches then the 'church' could be considered racist. But, again, that's just my opinion.
It's truly laughable to watch some white folks run around and scream "racists" about Rev. Wright. Having no freaking idea what REAL racists are, I'm sorry but it is laughable. Rev. Wright was born in 1941 (much younger than I am) and knowing how this country operated I know some of what he experienced as a black man. There are some who will never forgive this country for treating them worse than animals. While I don't agree, I do understand how they feel. Again it's laughable to hear some white folks cry racism when they have no first hand knowledge of what racism truly is. Ever heard that saying "walk a mile in someone else's shoes BEFORE you criticize them". You should try it.
Rev. Wright put his life on the line serving his country. IMO he has every right to criticize that country. As for Michelle? Misquoting her comments does not make your point. Taking her comments out of context (remember Rush's phony soliders out of context statement) does not make your point. You must accept and understand that black folks view a country that has treated them worse than animals a little different than you do. While no one can deny the country has made progress in race relations we cannot forget nor deny the lasting effects of past treatment of black folks. When will things change? No in my lifetime that's for sure. Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Mexican Americans and Muslim Americans have all experienced racism. Who's missing from that list?
It's truly laughable to watch some white folks run around and scream "racists" about Rev. Wright. Having no freaking idea what REAL racists are, I'm sorry but it is laughable. Rev. Wright was born in 1941 (much younger than I am) and knowing how this country operated I know some of what he experienced as a black man. There are some who will never forgive this country for treating them worse than animals. While I don't agree, I do understand how they feel. Again it's laughable to hear some white folks cry racism when they have no first hand knowledge of what racism truly is. Ever heard that saying "walk a mile in someone else's shoes BEFORE you criticize them". You should try it.
Rev. Wright put his life on the line serving his country. IMO he has every right to criticize that country. As for Michelle? Misquoting her comments does not make your point. Taking her comments out of context (remember Rush's phony soliders out of context statement) does not make your point. You must accept and understand that black folks view a country that has treated them worse than animals a little different than you do. While no one can deny the country has made progress in race relations we cannot forget nor deny the lasting effects of past treatment of black folks. When will things change? No in my lifetime that's for sure. Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Mexican Americans and Muslim Americans have all experienced racism. Who's missing from that list?
It's truly laughable to watch some white folks run around and scream "racists" about Rev. Wright. Having no freaking idea what REAL racists are, I'm sorry but it is laughable. Rev. Wright was born in 1941 (much younger than I am) and knowing how this country operated I know some of what he experienced as a black man. There are some who will never forgive this country for treating them worse than animals. While I don't agree, I do understand how they feel. Again it's laughable to hear some white folks cry racism when they have no first hand knowledge of what racism truly is. Ever heard that saying "walk a mile in someone else's shoes BEFORE you criticize them". You should try it.
Rev. Wright put his life on the line serving his country. IMO he has every right to criticize that country. As for Michelle? Misquoting her comments does not make your point. Taking her comments out of context (remember Rush's phony soliders out of context statement) does not make your point. You must accept and understand that black folks view a country that has treated them worse than animals a little different than you do. While no one can deny the country has made progress in race relations we cannot forget nor deny the lasting effects of past treatment of black folks. When will things change? No in my lifetime that's for sure. Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Mexican Americans and Muslim Americans have all experienced racism. Who's missing from that list?
"There are some who will never forgive this country for treating them worse than animals. While I don't agree, I do understand how they feel"
And, they are still racist. Whatever the 'reason' they use to validate their racism, it is still called racism. White people have been using different reasons to 'validate' why they treat people the way they do, and they are still racist, black people are no different.
"As for Michelle? Misquoting her comments does not make your point. Taking her comments out of context ... does not make your point."
I didn't "misquote" anyone!! I didn't even quote her.
"You must accept and understand that black folks view a country that has treated them worse than animals a little different than you do."
I "MUST" accept some black people are racist??? I don't think so. The racist black people need to change, just like the racist white people need to change. If you're going to 'excuse' racism from black people just because you are black then your arguement is lost. Give me a better reason to allow a racist preacher to continue his racist preaching that is better than 'you were that way, now it's our turn'.
"Native Americans, African Americans, Japanese Americans, Mexican Americans and Muslim Americans have all experienced racism. Who's missing from that list? "
White Americans. Maybe you don't see the racism that we've experienced because you have your blinders on and cannot see past your own plank. Maybe our overall racism experiences aren't as awful or horrendous as yours, but racism is still present against everyone. It sounds like you are saying that since you have more 'examples' of racism against blacks than I do against whites then racism against whites is non-exsistant. Thanks for the lesson in racism.
Has anyone noticed a foul stench emanating from this?
As if a covert alignment involving Rove was elusively underfoot,
would this make McCain...a troll?
¶Perhaps with another countenance, albeit docile,
to mask the lurking ogre within?
McCain is the same personality type that George Bush is, ESTP. He will run as dirty a campaign as Bush. He will get a free pass like Bush. This personality type is called "the promotor" because they are very good at just that, promoting. If anybody here has any understanding of personality types, you know this type is the hustler, the fight promotor. They will take people's good will and turn around and cynically use it to their own ends. They usually get what they want because they are good at fooling people who think they might have an ounce of empathy. They don't. They are ruthless in their self promotion.
The campaign says it made a mistake. I don't beleive it for one second. Whoever our candidate is, that person better not think it's a mistake either. These "mistakes" will keep happening and McCain will wiggle out of them. Artisan personality types like McCain are adept at getting out of tight spots. They are good tactitians but unfortunatley not good at seeing the long term big picture. They are not good at diplomacy either. God help us if this guy becomes the president.
Hey JJ. I don't know anything about the formal study of personality types, but my own "life studies" of con-men and hucksters backs you up.
My most conservative co-workers are also the biggest Lotto ticket buyers and status/designer brand consumers. Marketing works best on them.
These guys like McCain and Bush are the con's con. They excell at being so cynical that they wield a huge advantage over more gullible and trusting personalties. They are the ultimate manipulators. They use their tactical intelligence to browbeat their competitors and they (the competition) never see it coming. My hope is that the country is so entirely sick of the status quo that they will overwhelmingly vote for a Democrat. I'm hoping the country has wised up after having Bush for 8 years.
But then, there's always those suckers, like you said Col..Living for the here and now and not giving a crap about the future. Living on a wing and a prayer and a lotto ticket. But always trusting the charming, "fun to be around" (as described by the press) guys like Bush and McCain.