Matthews conflated Wright and Obama, then said they are "different faces of the same guy"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Chris Matthews likened the relationship between Sen. Barack Obama and his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, to "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and asserted: [E]very time you have a problem with Barack, because you don't really know him and he seems a little foreign to you, you think of -- you think of him as both these guys. They're different faces of the same guy. Jeremiah Wright, to a lot of people, is Barack Obama."
On the April 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asserted of Sen. Barack Obama and his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.: "They're different faces of the same guy." Indeed, earlier in the program Matthews illustrated his point by conflating Obama with Wright. While referring to Obama and mentioning "his middle name," Matthews seamlessly transitioned to refer to Wright's security detail as "defend[ing] him," and "standing behind him," and saying, "And didn't he get security from [Nation of Islam leader Louis] Farrakhan today?" prompting Matthews' guest Rev. Eugene Rivers to ask, "Who are we talking about -- Wright? Are we talking about Jeremiah?"
Discussing Obama and Wright, Matthews said to guest Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker: "Let me give you the problem, in a way of putting it in perhaps literary terms. It's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Matthews continued, "Who was the bad guy? Dr. Jekyll was the good guy. Mr. Hyde was the bad guy, right?" He added: "So, every time you have a problem with Barack, because you don't really know him and he seems a little foreign to you, you think of -- you think of him as both these guys. They're different faces of the same guy. Jeremiah Wright, to a lot of people, is Barack Obama. They've become the same Chicago character running for president. One is the good doctor, the other one is the monster that shows up at night."
Following Matthews' assertion, Lizza said to Matthews, "Look, I think there's a danger of that happening. But, as a journalist -- or, as journalists, I think it's our responsibility to make it clear." Matthews responded, "OK, carve it apart. Separate the two. Try." Lizza said: "This guy went to a church. This guy is the pastor of that church. Now one of those guys is running for president and has laid out a vision that is radically different than anything his left-wing pastor had to say. Yes, it tells you something about who he is. It tells you about -- something about the community he came from. But it doesn't tell you everything. And nobody should confuse one person's views with the other person's." Later, Lizza said, "I'm not saying that this is not the way politics plays. I'm just trying to draw a distinction and be fair to the Obama campaign and fair to Wright, and distinguish between a candidate's views and his pastor's views. I'm not denying that the politics of this are terrible for Obama." Matthews responded, "We're on the same topic, now that we're on -- I don't know what other topic you were on. I was sort of on politics. This is Hardball. We talk politics, Ryan."
Earlier in the program, Matthews asserted, "You know, 13 percent of the American people believe that Barack Obama is Muslim. I don't know how that got started. Hillary Clinton, of course, gave that cute answer to Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes, saying, 'As far as I know' he's not Islamic." Matthews has repeatedly mischaracterized Clinton's response during a CBS 60 Minutes interview to the question of whether she "believe[d] that Senator Obama is a Muslim." Her first three words in response to the question were, "Of course not."
Immediately following his mischaracterization of Clinton's remarks, Matthews asserted, "And you know -- and Jon Stewart had that yuck-yuck during the Oscars -- saying his middle name is Hussein. But clearly, there's some people out there who've allowed this to be perpetrated. But then today, didn't -- didn't the Fruit of Islam defend him today at the National Press Club? Weren't they standing behind him? And didn't he get security from Farrakhan today? I mean, am I crazy?" As Media Matters for America noted, Matthews has previously criticized Stewart and others for using Obama's middle name despite the fact that the first mention of Obama's middle name in a political context that Media Matters found in the Nexis database came from Matthews himself on November 7, 2006.
From the April 28 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Reverend -- Reverend, let me just bring this up to you, Reverend Rivers. You know, 13 percent of the American people believe that Barack Obama is Muslim. I don't know how that got started. Hillary Clinton, of course, gave that cute answer to Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes --
RIVERS: Right.
MATTHEWS: -- saying, "As far as I know" --
RIVERS: Yes. Right.
MATTHEWS: -- he's not Islamic.
RIVERS: Right. Right.
MATTHEWS: And you know -- and Jon Stewart had that yuck-yuck during the Oscars -- saying his middle name is Hussein. But clearly, there's some people out there who've allowed this to be perpetrated.
RIVERS: Right. Right.
MATTHEWS: But then today, didn't -- didn't the Fruit of Islam defend him today at the National Press Club? Weren't they standing behind him? And didn't he get security from Farrakhan today? I mean, am I crazy?
RIVERS: Who are we talking about -- Wright? Are we talking about Jeremiah?
MATTHEWS: Didn't the Reverend Wright? Yeah. Yeah.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Let me give you the problem, in a way of putting it in perhaps literary terms. It's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Just a minute. Who was the bad guy? Dr. Jekyll was the good guy. Mr. Hyde was the bad guy, right?
LIZZA: I'll trust you on that. I don't --
MATTHEWS: Well, I think so.
So, every time you have a problem with Barack, because you don't really know him and he seems a little foreign to you, you think of -- you think of him as both these guys. They're different faces of the same guy.
Jeremiah Wright, to a lot of people, is Barack Obama. They've become the same Chicago character running for president. One is the good doctor, the other one is the monster that shows up at night.
LIZZA: Look, I think there's a danger of that happening. But, as a journalist -- or, as journalists, I think it's our responsibility to make it clear --
MATTHEWS: OK, carve it apart. Separate the two. Try.
LIZZA: This guy went to a church. This guy is the pastor of that church. Now one of those guys is running for president and has laid out a vision that is radically different than anything his left-wing pastor had to say.
Yes, it tells you something about who he is. It tells you about -- something about the community he came from. But it doesn't tell you everything. And nobody should confuse one person's views with the other person's.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it might be hurting a good man like Mitt Romney and his family, and good members of the LDS church, that they're being embarrassed by this breakaway group down there in Texas in the last couple weeks? You don't think that story hurts Mitt Romney's -- Mitt Romney's chances of being on the ticket?
LIZZA: Absolutely. I'm sure it -- I'm sure it does.
MATTHEWS: Yes, it does. So, I'm saying, these associations, fair or unfair --
JILL ZUCKMAN (Chicago Tribune reporter): Right.
LIZZA: Right.
MATTHEWS: -- birds of a feather. It's the way people think.
ZUCKMAN: I just think -- Ryan, I think you're being a little high-minded here, because this is still politics --
LIZZA: Right.
ZUCKMAN: -- and his opponents are going to use this against him to raise questions in the minds of people who are undecided, on the fence, feel like they don't know enough.
LIZZA: Right. I'm just saying --
MATTHEWS: "God damn America"? That's one of the greatest quotes in history.
LIZZA: Absolutely --
MATTHEWS: This is going Bartlett's.
LIZZA: -- if Barack Obama had said it, he'd be out of this race.
MATTHEWS: This is going into Bartlett's.
LIZZA: If Barack Obama had said it, he'd be out of this race. I don't remember him saying it. A guy who was his ex-pastor said it, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Do you think if you miss church one Sunday and you're fairly good at going to church, and while you were gone that Sunday, you heard the priest or the minister or the rabbi said, "God Damn America," you wouldn't have heard about that by Monday or Tuesday? Do you really believe he didn't hear about this?
LIZZA: I think one of the most fascinating things Wright said --
MATTHEWS: Come on, Ryan, you're a reporter. You think he didn't know about this?
LIZZA: I think he knew his pastor was a left-winger. I mean, basically, look at the totality of what Wright's saying. He's, you know, he's a doctrinaire left-winger. You find the views that he has all the time on the far left, right?
MATTHEWS: If you went to a left-wing church -- let me just ask you this: For years, the Democratic candidates for president and Democratic politicians have been lambasting -- is that the way you pronounce it? -- lambasting Republicans for hanging around with Jerry Falwell, the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and their ilk. Now they're going after this guy Hagee, Pastor [John] Hagee, who doesn't like Catholics down in Texas. This is the way politics is played. You get the guy's associates.
LIZZA: You get the -- I'm not saying that this is not the way politics plays. I'm just trying to draw a distinction and be fair to the Obama campaign and fair to Wright, and distinguish between a candidate's views and his pastor's views. I'm not denying that the politics of this are terrible for Obama. But, finally on the politics --
MATTHEWS: We're on the same topic, now that we're on -- I don't know what other topic you were on. I was sort of on politics. This is Hardball. We talk politics, Ryan.
See, false dichotomy Matthews. Why?
We haven't been lambasting the right wingers for hanging around with Falwell et all. We've been lambasting Falwell and his buddies. And there is another difference. Falwell, Buchanan, Robertson and others, they have actually had a hand in making policy and affecting policy at the highest levels. Such as W's Supreme Court nominees. There were a lot of religious right folks who had a say in who got chosen for the nomination.
Since Wright isn't a part of Obama's campaign, what you're saying is, well, stupid. That and the mere fact that, once again, what comes out of Wright's mouth and brain, is nowhere near the words and thoughts that come out of Obama's. ANd you're blaming Jon Stewart's parody of raving right wing lunatics who keep yelling about Obama's middle name as the reason that people in this country believe that he is indeed a Muslim?
Holy shiite Chris. You're an idiot, or haven't been, you know, paying attention.
magnolialover said....."We haven't been lambasting the right wingers for hanging around with Falwell et all"
Have you been smoking crack??? The left has beet up on conseratives over these guys for years. You have lost your mind of you beleive what you said.
I'm with Magnolialover on this.
From the Left, the concern is almost always with the religio-nutbags themselves.
To be fair, I don't exactly give Bush a pass for listening to those arseholes for the last 8 years.
Remember, the gay meth-addict preacher in Colorado talked with Bush on a WEEKLY BASIS!
I wonder how often Ted Haggard talked to Jeff Gannon.....
POV,
Which politicians on the right have been as intertwined with religious figures to the point that the media calls them "interchangable?"
Bush has consulted Robertson, Dobson etc. regarding Supreme Court justices and other policy decisions. Obama has not called Wright a political advisor, but rather a spiritual one. He has not appeared with him at any political events. McCain has campaigned with Parsley and the media hardly made a peep.
And the purpose of that meeting was to be........ consultation on judicial appointments? Whether to attack a foreign nation?
beet eh? Then your face should be very red. (I'll give you a pass on "conseratives")
Do they have the same social security number ?
Same DNA?
The same fingerprints?
What exactly makes them the same Chris?
I think people may have thought of them as the same.......until today.
BO. was very harsh on Wright, and I think cleared up any doubt that he wants nothing to do with this guy. I think any ststment Wright makes now....he will come across as the "crazy uncle". It will be interesting when Wright's book comes out however.
Its interesting that the media plays along, you mean to tell me not one journalists smells this for what it is? Pure politics. Not one?
Either the media is incompetent or they are complicit
I'm no big fan of Obama, but he did well today I think.
Wright is obviously a crank but if the media pursues this issue from now on it smacks of racism-- as does Matthews' comment today-- if it were two white guys he'd never say they were almost the same person in anyone's mind.
If it were two white guys it would have never gotten this far.
If Pat or Jerry (GRHS) had made inflammatory and racist comments like JW made back in FEB, they would have been tarred and feathered on the spot and the one running for office would have been drummed out of the race within the week.
I guess this would be the point where someone trots out the laundry list of hateful, racist, insane comments made by Robertson and Falwell (Say hi to Satan for me) and you move on without trying to defend your indefensable, ridiculous comment.
I just don't have the energy to do it today. Is anyone else up for it?
POV wrote:
>>BO. was very harsh on Wright, and I think cleared up any doubt that he wants nothing to do with this guy. I think any ststment Wright makes now....he will come across as the "crazy uncle".
Yes, I agree. I think Wright did Obama a favor. In fact, one pundit has written that it is important to have the right enemy. If Wright comes back and attacks Obama, then he becomes Obama's enemy, which works to Obama's favor. It is going to be hard to associate Obama with Wright when the two are enemies.
i think bo has a bigger problem. he's not ready for primetime. he claims he wants to sit down with ahmadinijead, that guy in korea, and assad in syria. and it took him all these years to find out what his pastor was about. are you kidding me. i don't like the other two, but this guy is scaaary.
Oi They scary as that lot what thought Shite, Sunnis and Kurds was all just A-Rabs ??? That scary mate?
i think bo has a bigger problem. he's not ready for primetime. he claims he wants to sit down with ahmadinijead, that guy in korea, and assad in syria. and it took him all these years to find out what his pastor was about. are you kidding me. i don't like the other two, but this guy is scaaary.
Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said on Monday that he agrees with the position, stated mainly by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries.
"Absolutely," said Scowcroft, when asked by The Huffington Post whether he thought the next president should meet with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's hard to make things better if you don't talk."
Good point, I guess Scrowcroft was not ready for Prime time also. Talking to nations that we have issues with prevents us from getting into an ugly war again I am all for it.
Good,
The United States is carrying on talks with the Iranians through European intermediaries. Obama probably knows this but in an effort to look like he has a grasp of international politics, decided to use this gambit to sound like talking directly with fascists will fix things. It is the same failed Jimmy Carter "lets talk from a position of weakness" philosophy.
The simple fact is these rulers look at what you do as opposed to what you say. They use force to inflict their will on their populace and see that only force will stop them. They have already shown contempt for the rest of the world and believe the West doesn't have the political will to stop them.
Iran has already shown that it will build it's bomb no matter what the rest of the world says. Obama, by pandering to "lets talk" philosophy, is angling to become the Neville Chamberlain of this century.
Pit,
My comparison is between Obama and Neville Chamberlain. Where am I talking about the Third Reich?
Also are you referring to the Blitzkrieg? Sorry. I'm not getting the point you are making.
Either you're just ridiculously ignorant of history, or playing dumb, or possibly both? Since, most folks know, and I'm sure you do as well, that Chamberlain was always blamed as giving in to Hitler, and not opposing him from the start, and since you're comparing Obama and Chamberlain, it seems correct that you're trying to draw a comparison between Iran and Nazi Germany. Which just doesn't wash...
You know, because you speak to your enemies, it doesn't come from a place of weakness. No. Why? Well, it's pretty easy to be the toughest kid on the block when Iran has seen what you've done lately in their region. Overthrew 2 governments in not too long of a time, and invaded 2 different countries. It's not hard to imagine that you could talk tough to Iran, and there is a good chance that they'll listen.
Talking to your so called and or perceived enemies is NOT a bad thing. Why would it be? Bush is talking to Iran. Bush is talking to North Korea. It's not from a point of weakness, but maybe it's better to talk directly to them, so that they know what you're going to do for certain if they step out of line.
Mags,
Enough of the thinly disguised insults already, ok? Yes. I know the history behind Chamberlain. That is why used the analogy.
I guess I'll have to explain it to you. My reference is clearly only to Chamberlain. His return from the Munich talks with "peach in our time" speech was sadly mistaken. Hitler soon disregarded the agreement.
The agreement is regarded by historians as exemplifying appeasement. As Hitler soon violated the terms of the agreement, it has often been cited in support of the principle that totalitarian states should never be appeased.
-Wikopedia
My point is simply talking to totalitarian's has been proven time and again to be fruitless. Take a look at Carter and N. Korea. Obama's campaign pledge to talk directly to people like Ahmedinejad without any preconditions satisfied by the Iranians has been shown down through history that it does not work. It sounds good, but the reality does not match the rhetoric.
One can make the analogy that Iran is acting like Germany in 1938. Even if I were making that analogy, I'm hardly the first. So this was an interesting off topic thread, but that's about it.
DB,
Yes you can make any inference you want. Obviously for some reason you decided to take it further than the analogy warranted. :-)
No, your "let's talk" appeasement strategy quip makes it perfectly logical to equate Iran with the Third Reich. Chamberlain "appeased" Germany in order to get them to move east in an attempt to give them a common border with the Soviet Union, while also hoping Hitler would attack the Soviet Union. That worked. What didn't work is Hitler also turned around and invaded Poland, making the appeasement strategy, at that point in time, no longer useful and Chamberlain declared war. Therefore, If Obama talks with Iran, Iran will probably stab us in the back, but not before invading the Soviet Union.
What I'm trying to tell you is that this is two different situations. For one, Ahmedinejad has precious little power over his government's actions. He is basically a figurehead while the Imams run the show. That was not the same for Germany. Iran does not equal Germany and Hitler does not equal Ahmedinejad.
On a side note, did you know that Germany was one of the principle players for the establishment of a Jewish state, specifically the Nazi party? They sought to deport all the Jews to Israel, but WWII broke out, and made immigration impossible. They even worked with the Zionist movement to establish a Jewish homeland.
Oh, there was nothing really thinly veiled I thought about my insults.
Anyway... Who is to say that talking to these regimes (Iran, N.Korea for example) has to come from a point of where Chamberlain was coming from? You don't know what Obama, or his reps would be telling them, and neither do I. I hardly doubt that it's going to be "Ahhh, that's a nice little Ayatollah..."
Isn't it possible, just possible, that Obama is going to talk to these regimes, tell them where he stands, and again, if they step out of line, or do anything to threaten the US, or our friends in the region (ie Saudi Arabia, or Israel) then we jump into the fray? It's not called appeasement, it's called knowing your enemy. What is the old saying? Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer? Doesn't that make sense?
Aside from that, what has Iran done to threaten the US for real? That would be, nothing... They are hardly comparable to Germany in the late 30's. Hell, actually, they're not even remotely close.
Drawing a comparison, regardless of what you say now, was trying to make it seem like Obama is going to roll over and let Iran invade Iraq, or something like that. It's a stupid analogy, and doesn't work, at all.
AA, comparing the current situation in the Middle East to the run-up to WWII is completely disingenuous to the current arena. For one, we're not fighting a nation-state, we're fighting an ideology that hides with-in the general populace. We need to work with those countries so that they will police their own borders. After all, that is supposed to be the conservative mind-set, that we shouldn't be in foreign countries unnecessarily.
They are hardly unified, and to speak of Ahmedinejad solely, can hardly keep control of their countries anyway. Iran has one of the strongest pro-democracy youth movements in the Middle East right now. We should be nurturing that instead of this constant harping of bombs and more bombs. That's just going to create enemies and more enemies.
DB,
I think you misunderstand my reference to Neville Chamberlain.
As I understand it, Iran is a country ruled by the Mullahs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier. He has also stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. The Iranians are determined to go against the international community's will and make their own bomb. They continue to saber rattle in the area and are covertly fermenting violence in Iraq.
I am of the opinion that Obama doesn't really have anything to say to these leaders directly that cannot be said through intermediaries. It seems to me Obama's belief that he talk directly to Ahmadinejad will give the West the false impression that talking to the Iranians will somehow convince them to change their ways. I think that is as shortsided as Chamberlain thinking the Berlin talks provided for "peace in our time".
He has also stated that Israel should be wiped off the map. - AA
You sure about that? I think if you were such a "student of history" you might actually look into such important issues. FYI - the actual quote was;
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
Old_Ben,
Where did you get that quote?
Here is mine.. It is from Al Jzeera, Oct. 28, 2005.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816rallies.
sorry. I meant Al Jazeera.
Don't know why the link got small.
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816For the love of dog you are thick. It's called a "search engine". There are many of them. For example AllTheWeb.com (I use them as they don't track users). I typed in "wiped of the map" and found both the improperly translated quote as well as the one I posted above.
http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=utf8&q=wiped+off+the+map&rys=0&itag=crv&_sb_lang=pref
And here is more...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm
It seems to me Obama's belief that he talk directly to Ahmadinejad will give the West the false impression that talking to the Iranians will somehow convince them to change their ways. - AnotherAmerican
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm going to have to disagree with your comment. Bombing countries hasn't convinced them to change their ways (i.e. Iraq). To me, sitting down with your enemy to at least establish a dialogue with the goal of hashing out differences is the right thing to do. To me, the President has this responsibility, not mediators, not emmissaries (sp?), not ambassadors. Each of us has seen what the Bush administration has done and that ignoring or refusing to communicate with the leaders of other nations further alienates us - and therefore has caused a rift even among our allies. Unilaterally bombing countries "into submission" or "back to the Stone Age" really hasn't accomplished much in the way of forcing them to "change their ways", especially since we're fighting an ideology, not a nation. Change can come through dialogue - you're just too blind and/or too scared to let it happen.
"especially since we're fighting an ideology, not a nation. "
That really needs to be drilled into people's heads.
CSL,
You are adding things to my post that I never said or implied.
I am not saying we should never talk to the Iranians. You are mistakenly inferring that I am calling for the bombing of the Iranians back to the stone age when I have not said that.
I am talking about Obama's ill conceived campaign promise to enter into direct talks with people like Ahmedenijad if elected. I think it shows Obama's naivety by buying the liberal myth that simply by talking to despots we can reason with them and somehow talk them out of their views.(Sorry. Here's the last paragraph. Hope it comes out bigger this time.)
I am talking about Obama's ill conceived campaign promise to enter into direct talks with people like Ahmedenijad if elected. I think it shows Obama's naivety by buying the liberal myth that simply by talking to despots we can reason with them and somehow talk them out of their views.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
I belive that bleeding heart liberal Teddy Roosevelt said that didn't he?
My point, you dunce, was that the current method employed by the Bush administration is NOT working. Obama may want to open up dialogue with our enemies - and why shouldn't he? Got any better ideas? As I said, bombing countries (and most likely killing innocent civilians) won't cause the target country's government to change it's tune. It will only make them hate us more than they already do.
Right-wingers live the very definition of insanity - they keep on doing the same stupid thing, hoping to get different results. Why do you hate change so much? Why do you hate America?
DIALOGUE DIALOGUE DIALOGUE, PEOPLE! You right-wingers are so good at yapping, why don't you give it a try - and make it useful and truthful, for once.
AA,
Should we start WWIII?
Do you think Iran's leaders are incapable of reason? Isn't this a common point of view from conservatives? I must say I am not all that impressed with your guys track record when it comes to international relations.
You guys always act so certain of everything, you think you can just BS the rest of us. Sorry, but I just don't trust your judgement on this. It appears to be based merely on the latest bigotry or political correctness.
What harm does talking do?
I believe what you are saying is Chamberlain made appeasement agreements with Germany to push them to the East so that they would create a common border with the Soviet Union in the hopes that Hitler would invade the Soviet Union. In that instance he was correct. What he didn't count on was Hitler invading Poland, and British public opinion pushing Chamberlain to declare war. So you are saying Obama is appeasing Iran in the hopes of pushing them to the east to fight the Soviet Union?
Or perhaps you are comparing the two during war-time, in which the first eight months after war was declared on Germany, the "phoney war," Chamberlain basically sat back and did nothing until 40 government officials voted against the government during the Norway debate, effectively ending Chamberlain's rule and allowing Churchill to take power. So Obama is doing nothing in this war and our senate is ready to vote him out?
Actually, you know, these comparisons really do not make sense. Then and today are two completely different situations.
Any excuse to kill vast numbers of people for you warmongers right AA? HOW can you seriously say we EVER negotiate from a position of weakness? We have the most dominant military in the history of the world. You have your Limborg talking points down the problem is THEY DONT MAKE SENSE. Ahmadinejad has NO power, the man cant get a parking space without Rafsanjanis say so. THAT is the man with the executive power and he is so moderate HE is the guy we used to support in Iran in the 80's. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or is rerunning the Rush Limborg hour your new calling?
The thought accurred to me as I wrote it.
Oriface of choice?
Ewe,
The ironic part of your statement is that the Right-wingers would not be voting for Obama anyway.
The only thing left, (beside the specticle of Rev.Wright continuing to show how far out of touch he is with reality,) is how it reflects on Obama's judgment and his heretofore well crafted image as a harbinger of "new politics".
Wright has exposed Obama as either incredibly naive or, as Wright so correctly reflected, Obama is your typical politician.
It is how the Democrats will react down the line that will tell the story here.
"It will be interesting when Wright's book comes out however. "
can I ask if this was your original thought?
The reason I ask is that there appears to be some kind of talking points memo invisibly going around. Every day, the talk radio wolves coalesce on some talking point and it does not matter where you are, you hear the same point on AM/FM talk radio. This was the talking point of talk radio today.
do you really think he wont say them in print where he can cash in on them?
Easy, POV - everyone isn't as greedy as those you admire.
these idiots are still bringing up that "as far as i know" nonsense? that's why thirteen percent of the public thinks he's muslim?
Today Obama through Rev. Wright under the bus:
from today's Washington Post:
"When he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism -- there are no excuses," Obama said. "They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans."
Ironically, MMFA is correct to point out the error of Matthew's statement. Apparently, Obama thinks that Wright just as wrong as the rest of us do.
I'm glad Obama slammed wright yesterday. Wright hung him out to dry over the weekend, with all his 'wink and nod' comments about Obama saying what he says merely because he's a politician. The guy knew exactly what he was doing, and could've helped Obama either by keeping quiet, or at least by not insinuating that he's full of sh!t. The creep knew full-well that he was slighting Obama. All that after Obama admirably resisted, for months, all the pressure to throw his so-called friend under a bus. . . . only for himself to be thrown under the bus by that idiot
What I'm now wondering is whether there will be some sort of blacklash amongst black voters. I believe I read yesterday that big-mouth sharpton is criticizing Obama for calling on the friends and family of the NYC shooting victim to refrain from violent protests . . . . Is that the gist of it? On the other hand, and as someone else mentioned above, having those two nimrods as "enemies" could turn out to be a positive for BO
Steve,
I'm of the opinion that Wright was only mentioning the elephant in the room. Obama is a politician and talks like a politician. That is not earth shattering news. Wright was not tossing Obama under the bus, but only saying what conservatives all along have been saying. Obama did not disown Wright earlier. Obama simply walked a tightrope with his denunciation. Obama was Clintonian or Kerryish in his statements regarding Wright. Obama's tepid denunciation of Wright was so full of holes that it made easy pickings for Obama critics.
Wright correctly saw that Obama had not disowned him. Wright went on a tour to try to explain himself. I had posters here asking me to read Wright's speeches at the NCAAP convention and the Bill Moyers interview because of how "resonable" they were. It is obvious that Wright felt his views were reasonable and took the opportunity to try to clear his name.
It is only when Wright, in an off handed way, verbalized what we all knew about Obama, (he is a politician,) that Obama became angry.
I'm sure Wright feels he was blindsided by Obama and was tossed under the bus by Obama.
I think it is ironic that Obama's belated denunciation of Wright only proves that Wright was correct about Obama being a politician.
AA,
I don't disagree with you that wright has a point, in a way, about BO being a "politician," in the negative connotation of that word. I like Obama, and think he's likely a good guy, but I definitely don't look at him with delusional hopes that he's above the fray of unsavory politics. In fact, I think Obama's whole relationship with that nitwit very well may have been "political," seeking to gain esteem in his local district while in the State senate. Nonetheless, I also think that Obama liked the old kook and in at least some respects, valued their friendship
So I was looking at it on a more personal level, so to speak. When the wright hoopla really got going in the media, BO, in my opinion, declined to throw him under the bus. I don't think BO blindsided him at all, but actually think the opposite.
I think it was Wright who blindsided BO by condescendingly speaking of his political aspirations. As I said, it's naive to think that BO doesn't share some of the opportunistic traits as his contemporaries, but as a purported friend of the fellow, wright didn't have to deliberately suggest that BO's campaign speeches on race were nothing but shallow rhetoric. Sitting in BO's shoes, that's what would've pissed me off
Steve,
I understand B.O.'s reaction. It would have angered me too. I do not understand why Obama did not prevent a loose cannon like Wright to speak like he did.
Obama showed his political naivety in not being in contact with Wright. His staff should have provided the talking points for Wright. If Wright would have rejected them, then Obama could have distanced himself before Wright spoke.
The issue as I see it is not that Wright delivered outlandish and anti-American rants, (which he did,) but that Obama's anger comes only dafter after Wright only verbalized the obvious about Obama. Obama's reaction is narcissistic and tells me he agreed with Wright's comments about America but takes exception at being referred to as a typical politician by the politically incorrect Wright.
Maybe it's because Obama doesn't hold sway over Wright? I mean, I'm just guessing here.
Wright doesn't work for Obama. Doesn't work for his campaign. Doesn't reside under Obama in any way, shape, or form. It's ridiculous to think that Obama would tell him to shut up. Why? Because, once again, folks like yourself keep equating what Wright says with it being Obama's thinking, which is, once again, guilt by association, and it doesn't work.
Mags,
I agree that Wright didn't work for Obama. However when Obama said he was not in contact with Wright it showed me that if Obama's relationship with Wright had anything at all to it, he would have been in contact with Wright to try to influence Wright not to do anything that would hurt Obama's campaign.
My guess is that after Obama's first denuciation, Wright was still an Obama supporter, (who knows now?) I don't think Wright knew what he was doing with regards to Obama's campaign when he answered that question about Obama.
It just seems rather elementary that Obama or someone in Obama's campaign should have had a heart-to-heart with Wright, especially after Obama's first denunciation. It also seems painfully obvious from what Wright said, that they did not.
Again, why?
Why silence someone not involved with his campaign? If he was going to do that, he should send out surrogates to have a little heart to heart with everyone who is disparaging him. The problem is not what Wright is saying, it's that people, such as yourself and others, are trying to tie what Wright is saying into Obama's campaign when they have no connection. That's the entire point of it all right there.
You guys don't get it. Wright doesn't speak for Obama. Obama doesn't speak for Wright. They speak for themselves. Trying to tie one back to the other, such as what Matthews is doing here, and what you and many of your cohorts are doing constantly is wrong, and misplaced.
Listen to Obama's words for a change, instead of placing Wright's words into Obama's mouth. You don't like what Wright is saying? I'm more than fine with that. But trying to tar Obama with some words is stupid and ignorant.
Let me put some of this into perspective. Just because someone is friends with someone who is controversial, or friends with someone who has opposing viewpoints, doesn't mean that they are one in the same person - or that both espouse the same beliefs. An example:
My Grandfather and I were very close (he's now passed on). My Grandfather was the very epitome of an Evangelical Christian. He voted Republican. He was a Seargent in the Army. His beliefs were rooted in God, country and family. He was also a racist and rabid nationalist. I disagreed with him on almost everything political and religious (I'm Unitarian, he was a member of the Assemblies of God churches). While we didn't see eye to eye, we always loved each other immensely.
Now, because I was associated with him, does that mean I believe and agree with everything he did, said and believed? HELL NO.
Same with Wright and Obama - without the familial ties. Think about it. Think about it for yourself this time - instead of letting the bobbleheads decide what you should think.
MATTHEWS: You know, 13 percent of the American people believe that Barack Obama is Muslim. I don't know how that got started.
Get a clue, Chris... The real question is who took that ball and ran with it. Who perpetuated the lie?
BTW, has FOX ever corrected its early reports that Obama attended a madrassa?
Hillary supporter, Dr. Rev. Barbara Reynolds is a media consultant who has endorsed Hillary on her website: Reynoldsnews.com., and that in a spirit of enthusiasm, reached out to Rev. Wright and tempted him to tell his story at the Press Club to redeem his good name, and the good Rev. Wright took the "bite." This ploy and scheme by Hillary supporter, Dr. Reynolds backfired and has helped Barack redeem his campaign and find his voice!
Let's be Clear: There was a time when Rev. Jeremiah Wright was once higly respected and sought after, hence his trip to the White House invited by Bill and Hillary Clinton for Prayer and Support when they were going through Bill's Impeachment time. Some of Hillary's strongest surrogates also have close ties to Rev. Wright, Shiela Jackson Lee and Rev. Marcia Dyson!
Going forward, however, Barack has to reiterrate all that got people interested in his campaign in the first place, the fact that he does stand for unity and for reaching out to all classes of people, which deflects that he is an elitist. That he works and stands for the working people and that he always has. That to get anything passed these days you need Change in Washington, away from Corporations and the special interest and invest in people! There comes a time in each Society for the sake of survival, they must Change and As a man of "goodwill", it was hard for Barack to see the egomaniac in Wright. However, when it became clear by the total spectacle Wright made of himself in front of national TV on all Three (3) cable-news channels, which played his Entire Speech -- something usually only Reserved for Presidents! And, Barack was right to divorce himself from Wright for the sake of the work and change he is trying to bring to the people. One Ego or a few Egos cannot or should not get in the way of the "Good" of the Whole!
And yes, it was time for an amicable Parting of the Ways between Barack and Rev. Wright who has definitely put a sword in his side. I now understand why Barack thinks some people are bitter -- he has been conditioned to think that way by the bitterness of his former Pastor, to think that some people are bitter, although Barack was not subject to this bitterness himself but was able to overcome this conditioning and escape it rather incorporating the engery of unity, goodwill and hope, instead! I hope, we the people, will not be blindsided by the onslaught of the Two-Headed Giant -- Clintons & Republican-Controlled Media -- directed at this Candidate of Change and Hope we have in Barack Obama and miss the boat again, by allowing him to be "Swiftboated"!
Barack "Investing in People!"
WD,
I agree with you that Wright's outburst gave Obama the impetus he needed to disown Wright.
I like Obama and his speech about hope. However I am struck by his associations over the years with Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, and Rezko.
It seems to me that as we get to know Obama we're seeing there is a gap between his speech and his history.
I'm curious about what is it that he's going to change? How is he going to heal the rift in Washington? Is he going to compromise or does all the compromising have to come from the "other" guys?
I do believe Obama's intentions are honorable. However I don't believe he has shown the judgment, nor has shown by his brief tenure in the Senate to turn those wonderful platitudes into reality. He has not proved to me he can do it. As far as his positions go, there's doesn't seem to be a dime's worth of difference between Hillary and Obama.
Not that it matters, because I won't vote for either, I really don't like Hillary. Never have. However I know what I'm getting with her. Obama is a big unknown.
IMHO he is not yet ready for prime time.
Of course Obama hasn't proved anything to you, AA. You're stating the obvious to anybody who has read one of your posts here that you won't vote for him or HRC. You'll vote for McCain as sure as November will follow October.
What Obama has had to do with his latest remarks regarding Wright is dumb it down enough for those in the center who haven't got this thing figured out.
I heard Laura Ingraham this morning refer to Wright as the "betrayed Pastor". This will most likely be the spin from those demanding the most loudly that Obama denounce and reject Wright, that now he's disloyal.It will probably be effective on some of the more gullible voters in the center, but I'm sure many more will see it for the clumsy ploy it is.
This is the desperation of the GOP, to create a scenario where a candidate has to explain that he knows people with whom he isn't in lockstep on every single issue.Many people understand this instinctually, and the 30%ers will never understand it. It's those in the center who Obama is addressing.I don't see dishonesty in his statements, and I think the rift between Obama and Wright is real, but the public explanations are more of an attempt to reach out to those who are capable of understanding the situation, but have only been fed the media spin.
It's going to be an interesting election, and I'm not among those who are sure that McCain doesn't have a chance in November. If the focus continues to be on trivia and sensationalism, the GOP may exploit the same fears they have in the past toward victory.
The other possibility is that, even considering the aging of our population, that grey baby boom bulge in the demographic, Obama may turn out to represent America more than the other candidates.Although Bush and his henchmen have been alive during the time of jet airplane travel and even the internet age , their backgrounds are more closely aligned with the isolated conditions of a century ago. Their ideology is more based on associating with only those who are in complete agreement, and hating and fearing those who are slightly, or even drastically, different in their backgrounds and opinions.
I think that outdated mindset has been a factor in many of the problems our country is facing now. Clinging to failed economic and diplomatic policies for no reason other than familiarity. It may take another generation, but I think Americans as a whole are broadening their horizons enough to overcome some of the discomfort that comes with being exposed to the unfamiliar.
Some Americans, of all ages and backgrounds, are more comfortable with this exposure to new ideas, and understand that those who are aware of the world outside of their own immediate environment are more qualified to lead than those whose first impulse is to condemn any opposing viewpoint.
You guys keep talking about experience, and ready for prime time and all. What a load of crap...
What does it matter to you guys now what experience someone has who is running for President? Didn't matter with George W. Bush. A man who failed at almost everything he did, and continues to fail in his current job. Ran a bunch of businesses into the ground, ran Texas into the ground, missed his committement to the ANG, got into Yale and Harvard only because of who he was, and so on. I'm sure that you voted for him twice, and probably did so proudly. And yet, he was and is an abject failure at everything that he's done. I mean, the man was a coked out alcoholic cheerleader.
Also, when Obama gets the nomination, and then wins the general election, as far as folks who didn't have experience who went on to become President, he'll be in pretty good company, and in the past, it has turned out that the guys who had the LEAST amount of experience, have been pretty good leaders of our country. Examples:
1. George Washington - no governmental experience before becoming President. He did OK.
2. Teddy Roosevelt - he might have been one of the all time great Presidents.
3. Abraham Lincoln - need I say more? And he had less experience than Obama did, he did pretty good.
Now, on Mt. Rushmore, you've got 3 out of 4 who did a pretty good job with little or no experience. History tells us that the less experienced guys did better.
One of the most recent examples of someone who had TONS of experience, and also flopped pretty bad? Hmm, about Nixon AND Ford.
This whole lack of experience talking meme is just that. It's a bunch o' bullshinto is what it is. I'll take someone who wants to work with everyone, and try to bring things together, and someone who apparently has some good common sense over the "experienced" ones every single day of this week.
Mags,
I don't disagree that the three President's you picked were all great Presidents but they had arguably lots more experience than Obama.
Washington was a adjutant General at age 20 for Virginia Militia. At 22 He was appointed Lt. Colonel and fought in the French and Indian Wars rising eventually to Brigadier General at age 36. He retired and was elected to the Virgina House of Burgess in 1758. Holding that position and position of Justice for 20 years. He was elected to the Continental Congress and appointed by them to lead the Revolutionary Army. He was elected President of the Constitutional Convention and from there elected President twice with 100% of the electoral college votes.
Lincoln was a Captain in the Illiniois Militia. He was elected to the State Legislature in 1834. In 1837 after teaching himself law, was admitted to the bar. He served 4 successive terms in the Ill. House of Representatives. He was elected to the U.S. House in 1846. He did not run for a second term. He helped form the Republican Party. He was nominated for President because he was outspoken and well known for his views even though he was thought of as one of the more moderate Republicans. Many at the time thought Lincoln was a disaster as a President and that his election caused the Civil War.
Teddy Roosevelt served on the United States Civil Service Commission through both a Republican and Democrat administration. He was appointed NYC Police Commissioner in 1895. McKinley appointed him Assistant Secretary of Navy. (He effectively ran it.) He is credited in preparing the Navy for the Spanish American War. He was a Colonel in the Rough Riders (posthumously getting the Medal of Honor for his actions in the Battle of San Juan Hill.) He was Governor of New York in 1898. Elected as Vice President under McKinley, he took over as President when McKinley was assasinated.
So, although Obama has a nice resume. Being a community activist, a law lecturer and 5 years as a State Senator and two as U.S. Senator does not really put him the esteemed company that you suggest.
Wow. I had no idea Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt had such little government experience.
Of course, when a candidate has lots more experience like Gore had over GWB, the conservatives don't think it is a big deal, but when McCain has more experience than Obama, all of the sudden itis relevant.
When Clinton has an adulterous affair, he is hounded and criticized for it endlessly. McCain has an affair and all of a sudden, it doesn't matter to them. Conservatives have convinced me by their selective attention spans that these issues really don't matter, but are just to be used when they are self-serving.
BTW, I remember Hannity putting down the Democrats by saying that Obama and Hillary were senators and had no "executive experience" when it looked like Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee were looking like they were going to win the Republican nomination a while back. Of course, you won't hear a peep of that argument now, because McCain has zero executive experience - exactly like Obama.
Since neither Obama nor McCain has executive experience - which Hannity claims is much more important than just being a senator, I am calling the whole thing a wash.
MATTHEWS: "But then today, didn't -- didn't the Fruit of Islam defend him today at the National Press Club? Weren't they standing behind him? And didn't he get security from Farrakhan today? I mean, am I crazy?"
Does a candidate control who announces their support for them? If the Grand Kalgon of the KKK anounced his support for McCain would that mean McCain is a member of and/or supports them?
I'm surprised at Matthews. Like him I'm a Catholic. Our belief is that God's message is constant and if a priest or pastor (or politician, or pundit) gets it wrong, that does not change it. We go to church, so to speak, for the product, not because we approve of the salesman. Protestants seem to have the opposite view that God's message is subject to interpretation, else why all this talk about "choosing your pastor"? Is it so they will only hear what you want to? Maybe Obama is smart enough or Christian enough - or both -to hear the Word through Wright's rants, and that's why he continued to attend. Anyway, what's it all got to do with the price of gas?