Politico's Allen misrepresented Obama's April 16 debate response on "disown[ing]" Wright comments
SUMMARY: Reporting on a speech by Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Politico's Mike Allen misrepresented Obama's April 16 debate response on "disown[ing]" Wright's controversial remarks by writing, "Obama referred to Wright as 'somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned,' then clarified that to say he had disowned the comments." Allen left out the first part of Obama's sentence: "[T]he notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit."
In an April 28 article about Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s -- Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor -- appearance at the National Press Club on the same day, Politico chief political writer Mike Allen reported: "In the Democratic debate on April 16, Obama referred to Wright as 'somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned,' then clarified that to say he had disowned [Wright's controversial] comments." But Allen misrepresented Obama's response by leaving out the first half of his sentence, in which Obama referred to "comments not made by me." During the April 16 debate Obama actually said, "And, you know, the notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit" [emphasis added]. After moderator George Stephanopoulos asked, "You've disowned him?" Obama answered, "The comments, the comments that I've disowned."
From Allen's April 28 Politico article:
Obama, seeking to distance himself from remarks by Wright that some have taken as anti-American, has emphasized that Wright has retired.
But Wright talks of their relationship in the present tense. "I'm a pastor; he's a member," he said. "I'm not a 'spiritual mentor.' "
In the Democratic debate on April 16, Obama referred to Wright as "somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned," then clarified that to say he had disowned the comments.
But Wright objected to a question saying Obama had denounced him.
"Whoever wrote that question doesn't read or watch the news," Wright said. "He did not denounce me. He distanced himself from some of my remarks, like most of you, never having heard the sermon, all right? ...
"He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was [portrayed as] anti-American. ... He did, as I said, what politicians do."
It is truly amazing to witness.
But, I could be wrong.... I'm just in a very pessimistic mood today.
If that made your day, I can only conclude care more about winning than winning honestly.
It seems pretty clear at ths point.
Lighten up Francis.
(Sgt. Hulka)
Obama should disown this narcisstic, egomaniacal, self-absorbed, arrogant "victimized" media grandstander. He is out to ruin Obama and make sure he single-handedly derails his campaign, he is pathetic......and calls himself a Christian?
An Obama presidency threatens his very livelihood, where his divisive and nutty rhetoric has sustained him for decades.
Go away Reverend Wright.
Wow. What a stretch. Yesterday you (in essence) said that we had no idea that O'Reilly was serious, and should take him at his word that it was a joke. Today, you what Wright's intent is, and it is a diabolical plot to destroy Obama's chances to become Pres.
Tommy, I enjoy our debates, but I have to say, when you do this sort of thing, it makes you look as though you either haven't got a clue, or you are not willing to give equal treatment to both/all sides. I'm not thrilled with Wright either, but, your accusation is completely unfounded.
" I'm not thrilled with Wright either,. . ."--Rick
But, how can you be sure Wright's intent is to destroy Obama's chances? At least with O'Reilly, we took him at his word and demeanor.
It is called an opinion Rick, it is my opinion. You don't have to agree, you know?
Some of you just cannot accept different opinions, amazing. Too bad.
You beat us to death (figuratively) yesterday about BO, and most of us explained in detail how we arrived at our opinions--but that wasn't acceptable to you. Now today, we're simply supposed to accept your accusation against Wright because you said so. The irony continues.
TAG--someone else's turn keeping Tommy and his MMFA debunking agency busy. My dues are paid.
What is wrong with you? I gave you my opinion yesterday and you are free to accept it or not, I could care less. You did not convince me that I was of the wrong opinion, so what. The same today. Disagree all you want too.
You are the testy one.
Rick,
A lot of folks are of the opinion that Wright may be out to destroy Obama including several well respected African-American columnist like Bob Herbert & Eugene Robinson Also columnist Jonathan Capehart who said as much on Morning Joe today.
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright went to Washington on Monday not to praise Barack Obama, but to bury him. Bob Herbert
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/opinion/29herbert.html?em&ex=1209614400&en=59c5fed4ddb08cac&ei=5087%0A
Historically and theologically, he was inflating his importance in a pride-goeth-before-the-fall kind of way. Politically, by surfacing now, he was throwing Barack Obama under the bus. Eugene Robinson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802102.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Jeter, They are just mind readers too, like the rest of us whose opinions are not shared by the masses around here.........we've been through it for years, nothing new.
Thanks for your links.
No problem Tommy. Funny how folks forget this is a forum to share not only facts/info BUT also our opinions.
I know, really. Do they think we are that stupid? Anyone who disagrees with the prevailing liberal wisdom, or doesn't share the consistent hatred of rightwing bloviators highlighted here all the time, are simple mind readers, or fools......either one.
It hardly makes their case stronger, but they think it does. Gotta love 'em anyway.
"...the rest of us whose opinions are not shared by the masses around here.........(Tommy)
Do you realize that on the first page of comments there are four reps for "the masses" and three of you free-thinking outnumbered victims? And you all seem completely in agreement.
Surely there are some respected African American community leaders who support Obama and could take this guy aside and tell him to chill.
I hope you're right. I'm not an Obama supporter [at this time] but I still don't want to see him lose the nomination because of something like this.
Jeter,
You'd rather see him lose some other way?
Cute AA ;-)
But seriously, the answer would be yes. If Hillary somehow secures the nomination honestly then fine. But I wouldn't want to see anyone lose out because of this type of controversy.
Tommy,
Don't blame me. I was just asking the question. :-)
Looks like Obama finally grew a pair and said what he should have said a month ago.
It is not the Republicans who are gnawing at Obama's base. It is his own Pastor and Hillary. I find it ironic that the antipathy by many here is placed anywhere but where it really belongs.
Jeter, as I mentioned above, I think he's certainly harming Obama's chances. My complaint with Tommy is his attempt to devine Wright's intentions, something he censured us for yesterday on the Billo thread.
Concerning Wright, I wish, as do many, he'd go away. But I don't believe his intention is to harm Obama's candidacy. It's more likely a simple case of a person speaking out who is neither savy politically, nor very diplomatic.
Rick,
Of course none of us can read Wright's mind. But I'll defer to Herbert, Robinson & Capehart in this instance as having perhaps more insight into Wright's motives than I do.
Wright is doing Obama no favors, & one does have to wonder if he's doing it out of some sort of misplaced revenge feeling that Obama kicked him to the curb.
I defer to nobody. It is my opinion that many people (you included) watch too much cable. Sorry to be so blunt. It is not my opinion that Wright is trying to ruin Obama. I think he's a very dynamic and entertaining guy and I don't agree with all the sentiments (of columnists, pundits, etc.) and actually think that someone needs to further the discussion about race, American foreign policy and compassion. Wright was thrown into the spotlight and he's no shrinking violet. There's too much tsk tsking and PC pitty patting for me coming from the pundits, columnists and so forth. I am pretty sick of people being so fearful and not speaking their piece. This guy is forthright and is saying a lot of stuff that rings true for me. We have been cowed by these media sissies for too long. They have their own opinion and that is fine, but they have no more validity than anyone else IMO.
But I still like you even though you do consume way too much media...I know you're insatiable :-)
TheRick
After what BO said about the racist Wright today, I think it is time for you and all the others to stop your whinning and crying and usless attemps to defend him.
Tommy, I notice you sort of highlighted the word "victimized".This is a description of Wright I've been hearing a lot from the media, and it follows a pattern of painting those who speak out as whiners or complainers, but I think his actual words defy that simple description.
link to transcript
"...We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism! We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism!"
These are the words of Wright. He's not saying "We were taken from Africa", he's saying "We took Africans...", "We"as in "America".This is the man the conservative media is describing as unpatriotic and un-American. A black man of his age talking about the racial injustices of the past, but not from a victim point of view, he's talking about accountability and responsibility as a nation. And he's saying "We" should deal with it, not "you".
I think it's been very easy for the lazy media and those who are happy to let that media do their thinking for them to get this completely wrong. It's not divisiveness and hate that has conservatives so terrified of Wright (and by extension, Obama), it's honesty, accountability and responsibility. It's reality, and if that sabotages Obama's chances at the presidency, then I think we have bigger problems as a nation than we even know.
Speak for other conservatives, Col. It is the divisiveness and idiotic accusations that I have no time for from Reverend Wright. He is irrelevant to me and doesn't scare me one iota, sorry to disappoint you. I don't take my accountability or responsibility cues from the Reverend, sorry to disappoint you again.
He is not running for office so what he says is his own business. He is sad to me, nothing more.
I have not reduced anyone to a caricature at all. You are just using that as an excuse to gloss over his incendiary and divisive comments, sorry I don't buy it. I am speaking of Wright's performance over the last few days, his own words and silly conspiracy theories that he has, and continues to spout, that even Obama finds asinine.
It's not divisiveness and hate that has conservatives so terrified of Wright (and by extension, Obama), it's honesty, accountability and responsibility. It's reality, and if that sabotages Obama's chances at the presidency, then I think we have bigger problems as a nation than we even know.
BRAVO COl!
Hi Pearlene :-)
I left 2 links on an earlier post [pg one] to columns written by Bob Herbert & Eugene Robinson. I hope you'll take the time to read them.
Ditto Pearlene's Bravo, KFC man.
Yesterday was fascinating to me. Every single media outlet jumped on the Wright as an anchor theme after his NAACP and Press Club speeches. But I have yet to hear what of what he said was so inflammatory. He defended his prior words, identified they were out of context, and illuminated the ridiculous narrative the media is trying to force upon him and by extension, Senator Obama. It was almost as if his flamboyance in defense of his speech was an affront to MSM expected contrition or subservience and failure to slink away is the indictment, trial and conviction - QED. Almost as if he wasn't being a good or polite enough "Negro". I really was dumbfounded.
If this is what really moves the broad swath of the electorate, then woe is America.
Better tell that to Obama then, because he is outraged and very angry about what Wright said. He called it a spectacle, his comments divisive and destructive and gave comfort to those who prey on hate, called them a bunch of rants.
Good for Obama, he characterized them perfectly.
So much for the new dialogue on race. Many of Wright's words are divisive, some are racist - but failure to acknowledge those emotions prevents acknowledging their counterparts on the right.
I will agree that Wright, given his hard tack, and the box the MSM had constructed because of it, left Obama little room to maneuver. Cutting him loose is certainly the political thing to do.
You almost got it right Wing Nut...
The Gov didn't BRING syphilis to Tuskegee, it was already there. They EXPERIMENTED on 400 black men that already CONTRACTED the disease. This went on for forty years. They basically let them die without telling them what their ailment was or treating them for it.
Much different from the Gov introducing contagious diseases whether it be AIDS or Syphilis. Preacher Wright specifically said AIDS was introduced to the black community as I was referring to.
A little outhouse reading to get you up to speed:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmtuskegee1.html
I haven't seen where right has claimed the government did this. I have only seen where he thinks it may have been possible. Maybe I missed it.
Considering the government's treatment of the black syphallis patients, I can see how some people can who feel the government has betrayed them before could believe it.
Open,
Wright didn't claim the Syphilis in Tuskegee Wing nut did. That is what I was refering to.
Wright did claim that the Gov introduced AIDS in one of his tirades at the NAACP or NPC, I can't remember which, but I did see the clip on the boob tube.
To expand further, how could Wright claim that the Gov introduced the virus into the population to kill black folks when it was initially killing mostly white gay men?
Pearl,
You and the Colonel have your opinions on why you think conservatives feel the way they do about Wright. Just to clarify it for me, again, I don't share that opinion where I am concerned.
And I get accused of mind reading? Wow.
"Obama should disown this narcisstic, egomaniacal, self-absorbed, arrogant "victimized" media grandstander. He is out to ruin Obama and make sure he single-handedly derails his campaign, . . ."--Tommy
So, both you and Obama can read Wright's mind. Good to know. And you must be flattered to be in such good company. :-)
[or perhaps Obama is flattered--who knows, I can't read minds] :-)
So now Obama is a mind reader too? You just can't grasp this whole opinion thing yet, can you? I tried.......
:)
Tommy, have I ever accused you of mind reading?
Since Hannity played the Wright clips, I've read and heard conservatives rant that Rev. Wright doesn't love America or Rev. Wright is unpatriotic. I say bullsh*t. Conservatives like to define patriotism as never saying anything negative about your country. Somehow they think that if we never acknowledge America's past we can all pretend the America now is how America's always been. That way conservatives feel free to call other countries barbaric or terrorist. Conservatives don't want to acknowledge that America had it's own terrorist organization, KKK. They beat, lynched, killed and terrorized African American for years with the approval of the US government. Don't say anything negative and maybe no one will remember American history. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson and conservatives cannot stand dissent. They marched in line playing follow the leader Bush for 7 1/2 years, never once making an single independent decision. They support a bill but then receive their orders from the white house to vote against it and there they go voting against the same damn bill they originally supported. It may not be you that doesn't want the truth but conservative TV and conservative radio damn well don't.
America is a great country but America has done bad thing to it's citizens. It is not a crime no is it unpatriotic to acknowledge it either.
Pearl,
No, you have never accused me of mind reading. As for Wright's patriotism, I have never here, nor anywhere, questioned that - I don't go around questioning people's patriotism, have you seen me do that here?
This is about the divisive and angry rhetoric that Wright "performed" at the recent media tour, he basically called Obama a liar and Obama was right to do what he did, good for him. As I said, Wright is not running for office, he can say or preach whatever he feels like, I don't care. But he deserved the wrath of Obama, I was glad to see Obama's outrage and hope this ridiculous issue is behind us all.
Tommy, sorry but I was only talking about the previous coverage of Rev. Wright.
I thought the Bill Moyers interview was appropriate, Rev. Wright deserved the chance to speak for himself.
This latest crap is totally different. I cannot and will not defend Rev. Wrights performance at the Press Club. "Press Club performance" was for Wrights benefit only, his 15 minutes of fame and unfortunately he's enjoying it way too much. Roland Martin of CNN has said that close friends and family members begged Rev. Wright to not appear at the Press Club. They knew nothing good could come from it but the Rev. decided to go anyway. We have a saying in the south "showing your a**" and unfortunately that's exactly what Rev. Wright did.
This is Wright's loss and one day he'll understand exactly how much he lost by acting an a**.
Pearl
I want what you are smoking. Wright as an honest man.....are you kidding........here is what BO had to say about Wright.
"I am outraged and saddned by Wright's comments yesterday"
"I many not know him as well as I thought".....BO
"when he equates the unites states war time efforts with terrorism he should be denounced" BO
"I can not prevernt him from making these outrageous remarks". BO
"When I say I find the comments appalling, I mean it
I am clearly and unequivicoly dennouncing reverend Wrights Comments
"He put on a preformance"
"Reverend Wrights outrageousness yesterday shocked and suprised me"
"Ridiculious for Revernd Wright to say US govt had anything to do with AIDS"
Obvisosusly whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed now
I do not subscribe to the views Reverend Wright expressed
Reverend Wrights comments give comfort to those who prey on hate.
There was nonthing construstive yesterday, just a bunch of rants.
Reverend Wtight contradicted everything that I have done in my life.
I did not view the innitial round of sound bites as an attack on the black church.
His comments were unexcusable
So Pearl, What do you have to say now??????
So Pearl, What do you have to say now??????
POV try to keep up. Red the Col's post, my response, Tommy's response and my response to Tommy. If you still have questions I can't help you.
I like the guy too,JJ, and have been saying so since he first came into the public eye.I disagree with some of the things I've heard him say, but that's mainly because he's one of the few figures in the realm of politics/media/religion who's actually saying anything.
I understand Obama's position-- he's courting that center of the country who may be a little uncomfortable with Wright's less- than- delicate approach to the issues. Just as the Republican nominee has to emphasize his respect for science and awareness of non-whites and non-Christians, Obama has to pick up the top layer of the bottom half of the country.
Jon Stewart made a comment (I think it was last night's show) that was pretty close to how I feel. He said that if he had a Rabbi who brought that much game, he wouldn't have spent this Passover neck-deep in a bacon & cheese croissant (something like that).
I think TBone made a good point, None of the media heads, or posters here, can really point out the hateful , racist or anti-American things Wright said, but they seem happy just that Obama's keeping the "uppity" one at arms length. Some fears run pretty deep, and it's entertaining watching all of the rationalizing of that fear.
I will speak for myself Colonel, I have rarely, except today, said much about Wright's comments because he is irrelevant to me, he isn't running for office and what is the point of getting into some long drawn argument over his words, frankly, I could care less what he says or has said in the past. You are entitled to have your opinion about him, as are the rest of us.
In my view, he is toxic.....his idiotic rantings about how our government instilled AIDS to kill black people is asinine, and without any proof whatsoever. He is threatened by an Obama presidency that flies in the face of his "victimhood" rantings and his racially divisive rhetoric. For if Obama loses he can use that loss as further "proof" of the evil white power that exists in our country today. That the "chickens came home to roost" on 9/11 as we got paid back a little, or some such nonsense that he spouted. He is angry, bitter, narcissistic, ego-driven, hateful, and a grandstander. He proved that yesterday. He is a race hustler, in my opinion.
Obama did the right thing by displaying his anger today after the accusations Wright leveled at him yesterday. Good for him.
That is my opinion on Wright, I am sure you disagree and that is fine. I am done with him, I hope the rest of America is too.......for Obama's sake, and all our sakes.
So, you don't like him much? :0)
As I've said here before, I don't agree with many statements of Wright's (gov't AIDS conspiracy, for example), but give me the transcripts of any politicians (or any private citizens) clergyman's speeches/sermons, and I'll point out some BS that will make that seem like nothing.
I understand the point you're making,Tommy, that you want him to go away so that Obama can sink or swim on some real issues.I respect that, the only conservative poster who was honest (?) enough to say that he hopes our election is determined by bullsh*t is AA, and I don't think he has any real principles beyond party loyalty.
If you think Wright is going to unfairly influence voters against Obama, and even though you don't like Obama much, you don't want that to be a factor, that's a fair position.
But remember, it's your opinion that Wright is hateful/a race hustler/ etc., and not necessarily everybodys. I'd be disappointed to see BO's campaign torpedoed by the man, but I don't think he's going to affect the porcelain-doll collecting pinheads who weren't going to vote for Oom-gawa anyway.
He may drive off some in the center who share your view of him, but he also might attract some middle-of-the-roaders who don't.
Alas, Tommy, some have begun to speak of our love that dare not speak it's name.So I'll go find a thread where I can insult you, Amor Loco!
How long will it take the JW apologists on this site to switch gears and join BO in condemning Wright?
Chaos!
JJ,
Two nights ago the bobble heads were trying to soften the blow of the Wright statements at the NPC. Then all of a sudden Barry Obama throws the bus in reverse and does a 180 on JW. Last night the dutiful water carriers who didn't get the memo now try and tell us how brave Barry is for doing the 180.
Deny it all you want, but y'all have a mess in the kitchen!
Despite my posturing on this forum, I'll agree, I'm not exactly happy with how the last seven have played out.
Who funds and runs the Politico?
by Salon's Glen Greenwald.
link
So the President and CEO of The Politico worked in multiple positions in the Reagan White House, and was continuously promoted until he rose to the level of Assistant to the President. And his close connection to the Reagan family and the Reagan presidency continues through today.
Are we supposed to treat this fact as irrelevant or something when assessing what The Politico is and what type of political coverage it churns out? There is nothing wrong per se with hard-core political operatives running a news organization. Long-time Republican strategist Roger Ailes oversees Fox News, of course. But it seems rather self-evident that a news organization run by someone with such clear-cut political biases ought to have a hard time holding itself out as some sort of politically unbiased source of news.
The Politico's biggest boosters are Matt Drudge and George W. Bush, and it is run by a Reagan loyalist. At the very least, those facts are worth considering. Given that Editor-in-Chief John Harris has repeatedly vowed to be more "transparent" in how they conduct themselves, shouldn't we have some understanding of the role played by Ryan, and what his connection is to "Allbritton Communications," whose "deep pockets" are (partially? fully?) financing The Politico?
Be careful. The other side will start in on MMFA being a Hillary-owned entity that cheerleads for all things Clinton. Shhhhh--wait for it. . .
Here's the sentence: "[T]he notion that somehow that the American people are going to be distracted once again by comments not made by me but somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned, I think doesn't give the American people enough credit."
The SUBJECT of the sentence is not Wright, it is "comments" - So the relavent part is saying "...the American people are going to be distracted..by comments...that I have disowned..."
The part that says "not made by me but somebody who is associated with me" is a qualifier on the word "comments" and it is the COMMENTS he has disowned, as he said.
It absolutely is. But, the authority with which MMfA posts these articles is no longer some concept of "truth" or "reason", but rather MMfA's own editorial opinion and motivation.
I was more talking about the OP that smeared Politico (and so I shouldve noted that focus instead of just pointing out MMfA). We all know that people who vote Republican have no journalistic integrity and kill puppies.
In the Democratic debate on April 16, Obama referred to Wright as "somebody who is associated with me that I have disowned," then clarified that to say he had disowned the comments.
Well this is moot becaus not only did Obama disown the guy today, the tossed him overboard (not literally).
It will be interesting to see how the JW apologists now react to this.
OOPS - left out the link.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/obama-i-am-outraged-and-angered-by-wrights-comments/
I find it interesting that Obama couldn't bring himself to really speak out against Wright until he thought he'd really be hurt politically by Wright's words.
He should have said this the first time. Now it is simply political cover.
I disagree AA. Obama could have very easily thrown Wright under the bus a few weeks back when this whole brouhaha started, but he chose not too out of deference and respect, in my opinion. Now that Wright inserted himself with his little media tour and started questioning Obama's motives and his truthfulness, he deserved what Obama gave him today. He is an opportunist, an arrogant ego driven bitter and angry man, whose jealousy and claws just surfaced. Let's hope he is finished.
Obama was forthright and honest, I believe. Obviously you disagree.
He is an opportunist, an arrogant ego driven bitter and angry man, whose jealousy and claws just surfaced. Let's hope he is finished.
To me this was obvious from the start. BO did the right thing today - the question is why did he wait so long when many others picked up on this long ago? I think AA makes a good point - but only BO knows for sure.
Tommy,
So you are saying Obama will sit by and not disown Wright when all those anti-American quotes by Wright comes to light but now Obama is offended because Wright became personal?
I'm not very impressed if that is the case.
AA,
Obama said he disagreed with those statements of Wrights, he did not disown him but he repudiated them and said they were Wright's words, not his. Obviously that did not satisfy some.
Now Obama is far more angry, rightfully so, and that also does not satisfy some.
For those "some", he will never satisfy them.
I am satisifed and ready to move on. Some are not.
Wright did Obama the biggest favor he could by making those statements and prompting Obama to finally disown Wright. It gives Obama to finally get rid of this albatross around his neck.
Personally, I do not see what Wright said recently that he didn't already say prveviously. What specifically did Wright say that incensed Obama?
AA, He basically questioned Obama's truthfulness and called him a typical politician who will say what's necessary to get elected, essentially calling him a liar when he repudiated Wright's comments due to political expediency.
Now you can believe Wright or not, I do not. And that is up to each one of us to determine a candidate's truthfulness, so I don't speak for anyone but myself.
Besides, if Obama wins what does that do to the divisive and hateful rhetoric that Wright has lived off of for years? Who does he get all revved up now and spout his anger? He is concerned about his own victim promotion. He is pathetic.
Tommy.
I'm kind of torn here about whether Obama should have addressed this. Now that he's kicked Wright to the curb, there is no telling how Wright will react.
I doubt he'll slink away quietly.
I am glad Obama showed some anger, we need that in a president anyway.....it was good to see, for me. I don't want someone treading lightly over controversy afraid to confront it, I admired Obama before for not throwing Wright under the bus because I am sure there was much pressure to do that, and he took the high road and calmly said Wright's words were not his. Now after Wright's latest escapade, he had no choice, in my opinion.
Wright deserved it, who cares what he does anymore. I don't.
I hear ya Tommy. Hopefully Wright will conduct himself with some dignity & head back to that gated community where that nice home the church is building for him is & retire quietly.
This may be the turning point for Obama. Good or bad.
Guess it depends on how the voters & of course the media reacts.
Right on J, we shall see.
Proudly signed, One of Jeter's lemmings. :)
You know what cracks me up Tommy? How most of the Libs here have no problem labeling every Con here a ditto head [even if it's not a Limbaugh thread] but get all put out when I correctly label them Lemmings for defending Olbermann even when he's wrong or being a hypocrite.
Ah well ;-)
I hear ya! But your big mistake was to diss Olbermann around here. For many on the left, he is there last best hope for media sanity, he is revered and cut major slack, always, no matter what. He is fighting the good fight and every word he utters can be rationalized for the greater good.
But the irony is exactly what you've laid out. Many here go off on all those who sit and soak in everything Rush says as if they are nothing but idiots, never having a negative thing to say about him and treating his crap like gospel.......yet they act the same with Keith.
That is the inherent trait shared by all hard partisans.
Tommy,
I'm a little bit late but I disagree with your characterization that Obama refraining from tossing Wright under the bus is some sort of virtuous behavior.
The toss under the bus implies that the tossed is sacrificed for the benefit of the tosser. :-) Obama's milquetoast denunciation of Wright the first time was so lame as to lead many to believe that Obama really did accept Wright's anti-American rants. Hence the reason the story stayed alive. Had Obama said what he just said today, it wouldn't have been tossing Wright under the bus, it would have been the correct thing for a Presidential candidate to do. Obama not disowning Wright showed me Obama's judgment was lacking in two areas. 1. He did not realize how insulting Wright's words really were and 2. He did not guage the political fallout. Obama's lack of judgment regarding Wright over 20 years and in light of those famous quotes was astoundingly naive.
Fast forward to now it is apparent that Wright had to have seen Obama's tacit approval as a green light to continue, which he did. I bet Wright feels tonight that he has now been tossed under that bus!
the dark comedy in all this is that Obama is outraged because his personal motives have been put in question. Wright didn't say anything much different than before, except the stated what he honestly believed and was apparent to everyone, to whit: Obama earlier said what he had to say because he was a politician. He hadn't disowned Wright at all.
Yes, Obama tossed Wright under the bus. And he did it today.
I tend to believe Obama on this as well. But I don't think this will just go away now. It has become too central a part of the campaign to just die the death it deserves.
I think it was Leno last night who made the crack that Wright won't be going away anytime soon - Hillary Clinton's paying him too much.
Tommy and Dem,
I think it strains credulity to believe Obama over Wright.
As I said earlier, it is apparent that Wright heard from Obama what we on the right have been saying all along. Obama's original denunciation of Wright was not a denunciation at all. It was an inarticulate and naive expression of political expediency. Heck Obama was defending Wright with words like, "I can no more disown Wright than I can disown the black community."
Of course a man with Wright's ego is going to interpret that as a green light. You can see by his explanations he felt he had Obama's hidden approval to reiterate those anti-American points in a less bombastic fashion. After all, Wright only tried to clarify what he said earlier.
The only problem is that Wright put himself in the spotlight again and made the mistake of speaking the truth about Obama which is to say Obama is simply a politician. Wright said " Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls."
That is not earth shattering by any means. Obama is proving Wright correct in that Obama's reaction is simply doing what he has to do to get elected.
I don't see how obama has a snowball's chance in hades now. The phones of the superdelegates must be ringing off the hook, with the hillster's folks browbeating them.
if you want a funny site, go here: http://www.nypost.com/spsections/hill_vs_obama/
i have said for months that the democratic race reminds me of those lead boxers in the penny arcades. you just kept pulling the trigger until one got hit on the chin, and then hit the deck.
Well, this thread is a little moot now, given today's events.
This is a disaster for the Dem party. Even if Obama loses every primary from here on out, the convention will be bad. Very bad.
The wheels on the bus fall off, off, off
Off, Off, Off
Off, off, off
The Wheels onthe bus fall off, off, off
All through the town.
To finish my above thought
Yeah - but which way will be curious?
One final thought about Wright and I'll quit commenting on him. Reading "Autobiography of Malcolm X" was quite enlightening to me, raised in a white middle class family. Here was a brilliant man with charisma and intense conviction, whose father was murdered by racists and whose mother was driven to insanity by her inability to raise her children (no one would hire her) A big turning point in Malcolm's life was when he admitted to his teacher that he aspired to be a lawyer, and was told that this was impossible, that he should try to become a janitor or something.
This was not unusual in his generation and probably shaped some of Wright's world view as well. Wright has not forgotten offenses against himself and others based solely upon the color of his skin. He has for the most part chosen to transcend the stupidity of racism. I wonder how well all the arm chair quarterbacks who have called HIM a racist and feel qualified to critique his entire ministry would fare under the circumstances he has faced in his life.
Obama has had different experiences and has a different temperament. I admire him for making a strong disavowal of Wright's more strident remarks but that doesn't mean that Wright can be written off as some loony crank. He isn't. His speaking out is part of a racial drama that we all, willing or not, must address.
Arbitrary rules prohibiting the 'negritude' from making critical public statements about the cult of corruption is reviving Jim Crow separation for the new 9-11 deception scapegoat.
http://www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/MediaPuzzler.pdf