“OBAMA SUPPORTERS” DAILY NEWS Monday April 28 2008

WELCOME TO “OBAMA SUPPORTERS” DAILY NEWS

Monday April 28 2008


Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., passes a collection basket
during a church service at St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Indianapolis,
Sunday, April 27, 2008. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Esteemed DUer's, please consider taking a moment (or more) to graciously participate
by posting news and announcements about the Obama campaign on this thread. You can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web. :think:

2. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU,
providing a link to the original thread :applause:

3. Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page :thumbsup:

4. Clinton supporters or “anti Obama posters please start your own “Clinton Daily News Thread”.

Get your DU-o-matic codificator (to format your posts) here
Read the Daily News Archives here

Since I’ve been following politics closely and especially since I moved back to the DC area to work in the industry (more or less), one of the things I have never understood has been the liberal/Democratic reluctance to call something a lie. When Al Franken wrote his book Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them, I am certain that the forthright way in which he called out something as a lie was a pivotal element of its success. In 2000, and especially 2004, Al Gore and John Kerry drove me batty with their constant rhetoric that something was “a falsehood” or that someone “misled”. They just never came out and said George Bush and the Republican party and the conservative noise machine were just filthy liars.

So I’m mighty happy to read this quote from Sen. Obama in the course of discussing the phony flag pin flap pushed by the right wing.

Obama continued, saying “so I make this comment. suddenly a bunch of these, you know, TV commentators and bloggers (say) ‘Obama is disrespecting people who wear flag pins.’
Well, that’s just not true. Also, another way of saying it is, it’s a lie.”

It seems like such a small thing, but I’m so happy he said it.

It's a story that the American media totally ignored. Our wonderful "independent" reporters collectively decided last week that it simply wasn't news that Hillary revealed she'd be nuking Iran if they attacked Israel, and that it wasn't news that she'd like to extend the US nuclear umbrella to Israel's neighbors. That means we'd be nuking Iran if they attacked Jordan, Egypt, maybe even Saudi Arabia. Show of hands: How many Americans are willing to start a nuclear war for the Saudis?

Well, it seems even the Saudis aren't too keen on the idea. They criticized Hillary this week, we learn via a Boston Globe editorial entitled "Hillary Strangelove" (the Globe is one of the few American papers to even write about this issue). They said she was as stupid as Bush:
The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations."

…more at the link

After Sen. Barack Obama’s third major primary loss and endless media coverage dedicated to dissecting the apparent weaknesses of his candidacy, one of the most striking elements of his campaign this week was what’s missing: any hint of internal upheaval.

At Obama headquarters in Chicago, hundreds of miles removed from the Beltway bubble, advisers held steadfast in their adherence to The Plan, a blueprint devised 15 months ago by the same inner circle that runs the campaign today, supported by the candidate and carried out by a tight-knit staff.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s operation could not be more dissimilar. Her campaign, ensconced in a Washington suburb, has experienced two major staff shakeups fueled by high-level staff rivalries, shifting strategies and an unusual degree of finger-pointing.

The contrast raises the question: How has the Obama campaign managed to maintain an island of comparative calm?
…. “Intense loyalty to and belief in the candidate,” Jordan said, citing the similarities. “Simple, clear lines of authority with real discipline among the staff and consultants. Deep, talented teams. Maybe most importantly, candidates who trust their campaign, who understand what they’re doing, who deliver as well as demand loyalty, who intuitively relate to and handle their campaigns with just the right touch.”

… “There are no assholes,” Axelrod responded. “There are going to be no assholes on this campaign.”

…more at the link

During the Pennsylvania primary campaign, Barack Obama made a rather charitable gesture not only toward his Democratic rival but toward the presumptive Republican nominee as well. "You have real choice in this election," he told a crowd in Reading. "You know, either Democrat would be better than John McCain, but ... all three of us would be better than George Bush."

That was all it took to set off Hillary Clinton. She rattled off a list of McCain's misguided positions, asking her audience over and over, "Is that better than George Bush?" She concluded, "We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee."

It came as a revelation to hear that Obama, who I thought was plotting to become president, actually has been shrewdly maneuvering himself in position to lead the pom squad at McCain's inauguration. But there was something else that struck me as strange about Clinton's reaction: Obama was not the first of the two Democrats to say something nice about the Arizona senator. He was the second.

A few weeks ago, campaigning in Texas, Clinton sounded downright glowing about McCain. Referring to those 3 a.m. phone calls at the White House, she said, "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Sen. McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Sen. Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
Let's review. Clinton criticized Obama for ranking McCain No. 3 in a four-person assessment, ahead of Bush. But Clinton herself put McCain No. 2 -- or maybe even in a tie for No. 1 -- in her evaluation of the three candidates.

…more at the link

As Hillary Clinton learns to tell her story, and for the first time generates genuine enthusiasm among her supporters, she also runs the risk of being seen as "the divider". Meanwhile if Barack Obama is to continue to be seen as "the uniter", he must learn to tell a wider set of stories, including those of gun owners and small-town America.

...For the first time, Hillary began to generate real enthusiasm in her supporters. In earlier campaign events, it was sometimes hard to tell whether her audience was awake or asleep.

...That said, Hillary has also been generating some of this newfound enthusiasm by attacking her opponent in various ways, some ethical and others less so. She is presenting herself as a fighter against an evil world. This gambit of presenting "us versus them" can be effective in building up morale with supporters, but it has significant risks for a political candidate.

Her negatives, already perilously high, are now soaring even higher.

The interpretation that she is joining with Republicans to destroy Obama as a presidential candidate in 2008 so as to pave the way for her 2012 run will hardly endear her to the Democratic party.

And to solve the problems she is proposing to solve, it is not obvious that the public wants a long series of political fights. This was a tack that was explored both by Al Gore in 2000 and by John Edwards in 2008, without success. Does anyone really want a new era of endless political bickering?

Even if Hillary were to get nominated, and then elected, the history of her health care initiative in 1993 is warning as to the likely prospects of this "fighting" approach actually succeeding.

...more at the link

Do we really want "Change"? Enough is enough!!

Folks I challenge you to forward this message on to everyone in your mailing list that has ties to Edgecombe County and the State of North Carolina. We as Black folks ought to be bitter, angry and mad as hell while some White folks attempt to discredit intelligent Black folks in our community. When are we going to say enough is enough?

Here in Edgecombe County we have racist newspapers who attempt to keep the Black community in the dark. We have the racist Republican Party trying to discredit our Black leaders along with some Black folks with Hillary and Bill Clinton included.

Folks I am sick and tired of being sick and tired. I have no problem with supporting some white candidates and have done so all of my life because there were some times when I didn't have a Black candidate to choose from in a particular race or if it was a Black candidate who I felt did not have the best interest of our community at heart.

But the sad part is when we have some Black folks who support White folks just for the pay out. These Black folks will sell their damn souls for a few crumbs.

Black folks who say they support our next President of these United States Barack Obama as he run on "Change, Change That We Can Believe In," but are still up to their same old bull manure ain't bout manure.

I have made up my mind that I am not going to waste my time on Black and/or White folks who say they are about "Change" however they continue to do the same old thing.

I know some of you may not agree with me however that's okay, "I Love You and It Ain't a Damn Thing You Can Do About It." I am going to still do what I do to affect "Change" knowing that those who do not agree with me will benefit inspite of.

See related links:

Tarboro NC - Vote for 17 years of OJT Carpenter v. Armstrong by Terry Smith Daily Southerner

Durham NC - Barber Denounces Race-Baiting Ad by Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II President NC State NAACP

…The primary, offering 115 national convention delegates, comes two weeks after Pennsylvania gave the former first lady the win she needed to stay in the race. But Obama is favored to win North Carolina, the largest prize among the contests remaining.

….More than 165,000 people have registered to vote in North Carolina in the first three months of the year, a nearly threefold increase from the same period in 2004. Election officials expect a record turnout May 6 — about half of the more than 5.7 million registered voters, compared with past turnouts ranging from 16 percent to 31 percent.
Another wild card: A new law allows unregistered voters to sign up and vote on the same day through May 3. Both campaigns have launched efforts to turn out those voters, and the polling sites have been flooded since they opened last week.
As of Thursday morning, more than 81,000 "one-stop" ballots had been cast — about eight times higher than during the 2006 primary, according to the state Board of Elections. An additional 8,700 absentee ballots have been collected, officials said.
Voter registration is up overall, but the biggest boost has been among blacks.
More than 45,000 black voters have registered in the first three months of 2008, compared with just over 11,000 in the same period four years ago. Blacks make up more than 20 percent of the state's registered voters, according to Board of Elections data.

…Neither of the state's top two Democrats, outgoing Gov. Mike Easley and former White House hopeful John Edwards, have endorsed a candidate. Among superdelegates who have made their choice known, Obama has a 6-1 edge. The 10 remaining superdelegates, including Meek, are uncommitted.
The two Democratic candidates vying to replace Easley, who is barred by law from seeking a third consecutive term, are not only backing Obama but have made their support for him a feature of their campaigns.

I am glad Senator McCain has decided to make himself the champion of the less fortunate,
calling Senator Obama "insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues" because
nothing says "I feel your pain" like jetting around the country on your wife's company's private plane at a fraction of its true cost.

Joe noted yesterday that Clinton's top donors are now fleeing to Obama. There was a particular telling detail buried in the story, below - 70 of her top donors are now giving to Obama.
As Chris would say, TIMBERRRRRRRRR!

More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton's lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.

"If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton....

There are signs that the anger voiced by some African Americans is beginning to extend to the Democratic donor base. Campaign finance records released this week show that a growing number of Clinton's early supporters migrated to Obama in March, after he achieved 11 straight victories. Of those who had previously made maximum contributions to Clinton, 73 wrote their first checks to Obama in March. The reverse was not true: Of those who had made large contributions to Obama last year, none wrote checks to Clinton in March.

Hat tip, DKos diary

Hillary and Bill Clinton are using psychological means to win the 2008 Primary Election.

Hillary and Bill Clinton both realize that there is no way for them to win the primary election, the delegate count or the popular vote count to take the presidential nomination away from Barack Obama.

The only remaining motive for them to stay in the race is to keep the contributions coming in, since any candidate in a campaign can keep leftover cash that was not utilized in their campaign. I see nothing wrong with this since all of our politicians do the same thing.

I have heard from other loyal Democrats who tell me that they believe Hillary Clinton is staying in the primary race in order to muddy the political waters of the Obama campaign and insure that he will not be elected in the November general election so that Hillary Clinton can claim the throne in the year of 2012. There are many, myself included, who do not believe this theory.

From my perspective, Bill and Hillary Clinton are trying to win this election through the back door by utilizing psychology on the voting public and super delegates. They hope to win this election through their state of mind and not the ballot box.

The evidence:

...more at the link

WALLACE: Let’s clear out this campaign business. Why are you ducking another debate with Hillary Clinton?

OBAMA: I’m not ducking one. We’ve had 21 and so what we’ve said is with two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure we’re talking to as many folks as possible on the ground, taking questions from voters.

WALLACE: No debates between now and Indiana?

OBAMA: We’re not going to have debates between now and Indiana.

I’m not sure why people are surprised that he did well and was totally prepared for the questions Chris Wallace asked. He’s a smart guy, he knew what they would ask.

Here’s the full transcript: TRANSCRIPT: OBAMA ON ‘FNS’

and part of the video

Rush Limbaugh calls for riots in Denver and then modifies his call for riots in Denver. The originator of Operation Chaos follows in the footsteps of Know Nothings and Father Coughlin and others who have gained large followings by inciting hatred and mayhem.Just to ensure that Rush has no grounds for assuming the Obama forces will do anything untoward in Denver, I shall set the agitated hater's mind at rest.

1. Barack Obama is on the threshold of winning the nomination NOW, not by fomenting riots but by the simple process of winning enough delegates to achieve a continuing commanding lead, and gaining the confidence and endorsement of enough superdelegates to at least equal the shaky superdelegate contingent presently committed to Hillary Clinton.

2. The Obama Campaign will, by or before the close of the primary season, have a massive infusion of superdelegates owing to their common decision to choose the presumptive nominee in time for there to be a fall campaign to beat John McCain.

3. Superdelegates will more and more appreciate that Obama, without making any false assumptions, has resolutely moved his campaign to the next level, which is the implementation of a 50 state organizing strategy that will swell his on the ground support to levels unseen in American politics.

...more at the link

There was, early Friday morning a huge lead on Huffington Post about how the mainstream media was turning away from Barack Obama as the Democrat most likely to win in the fall. The reason? Well, just read these quotes from the story and its sources.

....
But what are they asking the Democratic party to do about the specter of racial prejudice arising in their primary?

Are they asking the Democratic party to contest this assertion head on and state that white working class Democrats and the white working class in general is better than that? That these people are not racist and that Democrats trust not only that they have cast their primary votes for other reasons, and that they will vote for either Democrat in the fall because both are far superior in every way for those voters and the country than John McCain?

No, that is not what Democrats are being asked or advised.

Are the Democrats being asked to use this moment to heal racism everywhere it exists in America, showing that even though of mixed race, Barack Obama is the best person for the job and asking Americas to examine closely and set aside or reconsider their feelings based on race?

No, this is not what is being asked of the Democratic party.

Alright, then, are the pundits and advisors asking the Democratic Party to assert that even if some Democratic white working class voters are racist, that the party can rise above that and still win in the fall with Barack Obama because he will appeal so strongly to other voters, young voters, new voters, independent voters and even many Republicans sick and tired of what their party has done?

...more at the link

Interesting note that David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, worked on Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign,
and had decided not to become involved in the 2008 race unless Barack Obama ran.

Video here

My Sunday Times column is on the surreal new alliance between the Rove right and the Clinton campaign:

Obama scrambles politics in ways they do not fully understand yet, and profoundly fear. Endorsing Clinton’s attempt to redefine him as an elitist, leftist snob is win-win for them.

If Clinton prevails, they know how to beat her. If she loses, she will have legitimised a main Republican line of attack against Obama. It’s not that hard to understand. And it’s even more intelligible when you absorb a simple fact. Beneath the headlines about suicidal Democrats, there is a sobering reality for the Republicans in the current polling.

Even now – as the Democrats are tearing themselves apart – the polls are still showing that McCain and Obama are all but tied in the national vote. In a swing state such as Minne-sota, Obama actually has a 14-point lead over McCain, as of last Thursday.

The death match is now. And the Clintons and the Republicans need all the mutual support they can muster.

Let’s at least make one thing clear: Hillary Clinton’s claim that she is ahead in the popular vote for the Democratic nomination, based upon her having “won” the renegade “primaries” in Michigan and Florida, is both nonsense and potentially fatally destructive of the Democratic campaign.

First the nonsense. In both states, because the local parties decided to hold primaries out of order and much earlier than scheduled by the Democratic National Committee, those votes did not count, and the delegates chosen will not be counted at the August convention.

In Michigan, Obama honored the rules of the game and asked that his name be removed from the ballot. Clinton, already plotting for a fall-back scheme, left her name on the ballot (her campaign disingenuously claimed they “forgot” to remove it). So it was Hillary against Nobody. Even so, Nobody did pretty well back on Jan. 15, grabbing 40 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 55 percent. Moreover, turnout was an abysmal 20 percent. Clearly most Democrats and independents (who in Michigan, unlike in Pennsylvania, were allowed to vote in either party’s primary) didn’t bother to even go to the polls. It’s safe to assume that the Clinton machine in Michigan was quietly encouraging its backers to go cast ballots, too, while Nobody didn’t have any campaign staff, and so could not do that, so even Clinton’s numbers, such as they are, are questionable. The idea that the results of that joke of a primary could be counted, and that the delegates and vote totals could be assigned to the Clinton column is beyond preposterous.

Florida, where another renegade primary was held on on January 29, is not all that different. In that case, turnout was still low—just 34 percent,--but unlike in other “real” primaries, where Democrats were consistently turning out in numbers that swamped Republican turnout, in Florida, more Republicans participated than Democrats. That makes it clear that many Democrats simply stayed home, knowing that they were wasting their time voting for a presidential choice. Clearly too, overall turnout was as high as it was not because of the presidential primary, but because there was a controversial and hotly contested measure also on the ballot, and it did count: a proposal to change the state’s constitution to increase the homestead tax exemption (it passed by a 2:1 margin). Again, this vote indicates that most primary participants were Republican, since more Democrats were opposing the deduction, because it cuts funds for schools and other services, and more Democrats tend to be renters, for whom the exemption would be no benefit. Both Clinton’s and Obama’s names were on the ballot in Florida, but while Obama honored a DNC request not to campaign there, Clinton made a last minute, highly publicized dash to the state before the voting, putting in an appearance at a fund-raising event and getting her name and face in the media. Even with this unfair edge, Clinton only won 49.7 percent of the votes, compared to Obama’s 33 percent. But even that result is unreliable because John Edwards’ name was still on the ballot too, and he garnered 14.4 percent. Arguably, many of his votes, in a real primary later in the season, would have gone to Obama. In any case, it is clear that this was not a valid measure of sentiment among the state’s Democratic voters. Clinton, in January, was already a well-known figure, while Obama was still new and unknown, and without any campaigning, it is understandable that voters who did show up at the polls would vote for someone they knew.

I’ve talked with Florida residents—very politically active people who would not miss a primary—who said they stayed home on Jan. 29. As one (a Clinton supporter as it happens) said, “Why go to all that trouble to vote when it doesn’t count?” Given that this must have been a widespread sentiment, how can anyone say that the vote that was conducted should now be counted? Again, as in Michigan, it would be more unfair to count that election than to ignore it.


...more at the link

Democrats Registering In Record Numbers - 1 Million New Voters For Last 7 Primaries

By Eli Saslow Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, April 28, 2008; Page A01

<snip>

'Not Going to Sit at Home'

Al Landsberg, 66, approached the counter of the voter registration office at 4 p.m., an hour before deadline. Hefty, with a hint of sweat on his white mustache, he looked as drained as the employees behind the counter who rested their heads in their hands. Voting exhausted him. Ever since he cast a ballot for Ronald Reagan, Landsberg has always felt as though he was trying to choose the lesser of two evils.

For this election, though, he decided he had no choice but to vote. A lifelong Republican, he planned to switch his party affiliation so he could vote in the Democratic primary. That Hillary Clinton wasn't great, he said, but she was just as good as presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and a heck of a lot better than that other guy, "you know, uh, Embowa. He'd take this country right down the tubes."

Landsberg's wife, Evelyn, collects porcelain dolls, and her co-collectors send the Landsbergs frequent political e-mails, most of them critical of Obama. "From what I can tell, if he becomes president he will refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and we will leave Iraq unprepared," Landsberg said. "I'm not going to sit at home and let that happen."

He needed something to do, anyway. He recently retired after five-plus years in the Marine Corps and 40 years in the printing business, and Evelyn still works at an electrical supplier. Their three children moved out long ago. The Landsbergs save what extra money they have for three or four annual trips to Las Vegas, where they can find a cheap hotel room, play the dollar slots and smoke -- indoors and in peace.

They never travel outside the United States, save the occasional Caribbean cruise. "Anything you want to see, you can see it right here," Evelyn said. Plus, they prefer to spend their tourist money at home, just as they buy only American-made cars. Not enough people look out for America these days, Landsberg said.

Like McCain, with his free-and-easy stance on immigration, which seems almost identical to Clinton's. Landsberg's father had come from Germany, first jumping ship illegally and then, after a few years and some English classes, through Ellis Island. He met Landsberg's mother during the legal immigration process.

<snip>

...more at the link

Now, you know you can trust the motives of leading neocon William Kristol.
His column in today's NY Times is a paean to his new political idol, Hillary Clinton.
It's a recitation of Clinton campaign talking points.

Surely, Bill Kristol would never mislead the American people.
When Kristol and Richard Mellon Scaife jump on the Hillary bandwagon, they can only be thinking about best interests
of the Democratic party.

What's been missing from this discussion of Florida's and Michigan's
delegates is an acknowledgement that Florida and Michigan were told what
would happen if they broke the rules - they'd lose their delegates - they told the DNC "screw you,"
and broke the rules anyway, so they lost their delegates.

Now, with Hillary's help, they're acting like "gee, how did that happen?"
Uh, it happened because your state officials chose to break the rules knowing full well
that the price would be losing your delegates. Got a gripe about having lost your voice
at the Democratic convention? Have a little chat with your state officials.

But please, let's stop this little charade of pretending like losing your delegates was a big surprise.
Hillary's own top advisers helped put the delegate plan into place.
Everyone knew what would happen, but they did it anyway.

Let me caution you right off not to try these techniques yourself unless you have the time and energy to raise a troll. If you're not willing to invest in the training of a troll, seek the help of a professional troll trainer.

As we all know, the conventional wisdom teaches that trolls crave attention and that the right way to handle them is to ignore them. I disagree.

I think operant conditioning -- ignoring bad behavior, but rewarding good behavior -- is a much more promising approach.

While I generally ignore trolls, especially the little personal trolls one picks up at a site like TPM, I do keep my eye open for any chance to reward appropriate behavior by acknowledging their comments. For example, it is conceivable -- although I admit it's unlikely -- that a troll may post a comment that is actually on topic and without personal attacks or rude language. In that case, I make it a practice to respond in kind. The blogger's equivalent of tossing them a bisquit.

And remember this maxim if you are ever tempted to answer an inappropriate comment from a troll.

Man, kick a troll twice and you have a relationship.

You can watch him now at the National Press Club on CSPAN-2.

Lynn Sweet reports that his series of media appearances weren't set up by the P.R. firm David Axelrod helped retain.

He's come across, so far, as a very liberal churchman -- but without stirring the kind of controversy that those scans of his recent sermons produced.

He said of the controversy just now:

"It is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church," he said, to applause, which he noted was "from -- not the working press."

...more at the link

He is doing Obama no favors because the 24/7 news cycle will only focus on any soundbiute that they can sensationalize. If any intelligent life exists in the U.S. of A., Reverend Wright would at worst, be a non-issue in this election, and by all rights should be a positive for Senator Obama. Reverend Wright led Obama to Christ in a nation where a majority views themselves as Christian. If Obama didn't have "20 years in those pews" at a maistream Christian Chruch, the muslim smears would have taken hold last year and he would have never won Iowa.

I still understand why the media wants to paint Jeremiah Wright as a pariah, it sells. Those who continue to smear the name and life of a brilliant man of God who served his imperfect nation as a Marine are no better than tabloid journalists.

Anyone can certainly disagree with Reverend Wright's views and statements but to try to use them to disqualify Senator Obama as a political candidate is as someone aptly wrote over the weekend, the lowest form of politics ever to try to denigrate someone based on their pastor.

Posted By: turnip | April 28, 2008 at 09:32 AM


The selfishness of Wright noted by First Read is the accurate summary of this man. I am furious that this nonsense is consuming Obama's candidacy. Jeremiah Wright has a "crab mentality". That's an insiders description used in the Black community when one of her own will not allow another crab to escape unless all go. This is a tragic and painful thing to witness.

Posted By: RahabToo | April 28, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Rev. Wright's goal is to redeem his image and to capitalize on his fame. He is writing a book that will be out later this year. And this morning he said he'd be willing to be Vice President. Sigh.

Posted By: Janet | April 28, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Watching Morning Joe this morning, I got the sense that there is a real hope that Wright will say something they can loop for the next 6 weeks. There is something strangely grandiose about the media's fixation on Reverend Wright. I wonder how many of them feel dirty.

Posted By: Ohio Citizen | April 28, 2008 at 10:31 AM

After Rev. Wright's NAACP address, Rick Sanchez was HORRIBLE. He tried desperately to place a negative spin on Rev. Wright even after Soledad O' Brien and Roland Martin did not view it as negative as they were there. As a Black woman who has attended Black churches all of my life, the Reverend's delivery is quite familiar to me. I agree that he is demonstrative and passionate about his message, but so are most Americans. However, we aren't thrust in spotlight. I am certain that Reverend Wright is fighting for his legacy and the foundation of the Black church. Rick Sanchez, Tucker Carlson and the Pat Buchanans will always see Wright's glass as half-empty no matter what he does. Rev. Wright is not running for president. And while I don't agree with everything he says, obviously he has been well-received and respected long before the snippets aired. After all, he was invited to the White House by the Clintons as one of the nation's top 100 Religious leaders. And, you don't just show up to 1600 Pennsaylvania Avenue without some type of credential.....

Posted By: Marva | April 28, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Any one else find it distasteful that his "flock" are giving him a $10M mansion in an exclusively, rich, white gated community? Something wrong with this picture. Just to maintain the house and lifestyle will require ~$200T/yr. No piety found in this church. Only pride. Christ weeps.


Posted By: killbuzz | April 28, 2008 at 10:49 AM


Lets also NOT forget that Rev. Wright's views are NOT those of Obama!! Yes, some of you Repubs/Billary folks are going to say "But it IS"! In this country, our forefathers clearly seperated religion and politics. While it is true that in black churches, much politics has been discussed, lets not forget also that historically, this is the place where blacks got mobilized and became politically involved on issues that matter most to them...freedom, equality, civil rights etc. But lets not confuse the two at this time. Rev. Wright's views are NOT those of Obama. The media, repubs. and Billary will keep this alive for weeks on end, you can be sure of that. I totally agree with Obama, that while I respect Rev. Wright's freedom of speech rights, I do not agree with all his views, and in fact some of his views are most controversial, while at the same he is an EXCELLENT speaker!

Posted By: anitaindependent | April 28, 2008 at 11:01 AM

What did we learn today about the Rev. Wright controversy? That it isn't going away, at least for a little while.

From the excerpts of his interview released today by PBS, Rev. Wright says that his comments in GOP attack ads were taken out of context of the full sermon.

What happens next is easy to see. Rev. Wright is sending the message that this was an isolated thing taken out of context. His statements act as an invitation to critically examine his full sermons spanning over 25 years, which researchers have been doing for weeks.
By making statements so bold in their defense, Rev. Wright is saying that those on the other side won't be able to string together enough angry anti-American quotes to establish a pattern. This interview acts as an invitation for a follow-up Republican ad that is now a no-brainer: play Rev. Wright's defense of his comments, followed by sound bite after sound bite until there is no question that he is anti-American. He designed the ad for them with these comments.

Even if he was in the right, the fact that this is back in the media at all hurts Obama. Wright is scheduled to speak at the National Press Club soon, so the story will stay in the media through next week. Even typing the words "this keeps the primary tight in a battle all the way to the convention" seems almost as elementary as "there is such a thing as global warming."

There is no greater gift to John McCain this year than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

*** You’re so vain, you probably think this campaign is about you:

After addressing the NAACP yesterday in Detroit, Jeremiah Wright travels to the heart of the media beast -- the National Press Club in DC -- where he has been speaking this morning.

At this point, no matter one's political inexperience, Wright has to know he's not helping his friend;
his decision to go public and defend his reputation at this point in the campaign is doing nothing to help Obama, if anything, it's leading some to believe he's actually trying to sabotage him.
He's hurting him and hurting him very badly. Frankly, it’s as selfish of a move as we've seen in some time.
Imagine, for example, if Norman Hsu or Vicki Iseman were doing publicity tours right now.
Maybe, if there's a silver lining for Obama, he's giving Obama a very easy chance to simply walk away. Remember, Obama didn't toss Wright under the bus, but Wright appears to be doing that to Obama’s candidacy. Still, if Wright Vol. 1, “bitter,” and Pennsylvania didn’t move superdelegates, what will?

Nevertheless, Obama seems to be starting off this week in about as bad of shape as we've seen in him in some time.

For new school black politicians, it is an essential question: How do you recognize the righteous anger of those frustrated by racial inequality without looking like just another Angry Black Man?

Those of us who write often about black folks and politics knew there would come a moment when the first black man with a realistic shot at becoming president would have to face this challenge -- reconciling black anger and frustration with white fear and resentment.

Our mistake: We assumed that, for Obama, this issue would come flying from the direction of someone like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson -- a traditional civil rights leader who would insist Obama prove his fealty to black issues by showing the kind of aggressive advocacy which often turns off traditional white voters.

Who knew that the race-based bullet wounding Obama's campaign would come from friendly fire
-- his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright -- adding yet another unpredictable twist to the most unconventional electoral contest in history?

....But Wright's recent appearances will continue to hurt the candidate, because the reverend is the radical Obama never was, and he's close enough to give skeptical white voters an excuse. Right now, Wright is holding court before the world's TV cameras and an admiring audience at the Press Club. His dismissive attitude toward the moderator's questions -- which basically articulate the concerns many white voters have about Wright's public statements and positions -- are playing well in the room, but will likely stoke anger among the assembled press and probably among some white viewers.

...more at the link

Rev. Jeremiah Wright appeared at the National Press Club on Monday morning, speaking out in what he called a defense of the traditional black church, and charging that he will "come after" Barack Obama if he is elected president, since Obama would represent a government whose policies harm the poor.

"How long do you let someone say something about your faith tradition before you speak up and say something?" he told a packed crowd of journalists and supporters, many of whom stood and cheered throughout his remarks and Q&A session.

In the clip below, Wright addresses questions about his patriotism, his thoughts on Louis Farrakhan, and his relationship with Obama.

Video link

...more at the link

Presidential candidate Barack Obama's former pastor reignited the controversy surrounding his sermons on race in America as he defended his comments that the US brought the September 11 terror attacks upon itself today.

...The religious scholar and minister was Mr Obama's spiritual adviser for 20 years and his comments, which appeared on the internet and were replayed endless on US television news, damaged the Illinois senator's support among white, working-class voters.

This key group of supporters is seen as crucial to a Democratic victory in the November election against Republican John McCain and while Mr Obama denounced Wright's most controversial comments as incendiary, he has not severed ties with him.

...more at the link

David Axelrod, the chief strategist for Barack Obama, gets credit for understatement of the month with his comment on MSNBC this morning before Rev. Jeremiah Wright wrapped up his media blitzkreig of the past few days with an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington.

To the extent voters attribute to Obama statements and opinions that aren't his, Axelrod said, "it's obviously not helpful."

Now, in the wake of a feisty Q&A session that followed a speech Wright delivered, Obama and his top aides can only sit back and gauge how "obviously not helpful" the man who was the candidate's pastor for many years continues to be to his presidential hopes.

...Wright told his audience: "As I said to Barack Obama, if you get elected, Nov. 5 I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people."

That's probably small solace to Obama as the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana approach.

As political analyst David Gergen summed up on CNN: "I'm sure Rev. Wright has many virtues. Loyalty to his former parishioner is not one of them."

...more at the link

-- Wright was in the news this weekend, and he's not going away for a little while. After appearing on Bill Moyers' program on PBS (video here), Wright addressed the Detroit NAACP's annual banquet, a major event that has drawn politicos and prominent newsmakers for more than 50 years. The speech was broadcast live, at least on CNN, and if the Reverend flew into Washington this morning he would have seen his comments being replayed again. He's in Washington to address a breakfast at the National Press Club, a day after giving a sermon in Dallas, as the Dallas Morning News reports, and this morning he will address a breakfast at the National Press Club. After more than a month of relative media silence, Wright is reemerging with a bang.

-- In general, every time Wright's name comes up, it reminds voters -- with the help of certain bloggers -- that Obama is associated with his former church. As questions of Obama's appeal to white working-class males in the Midwest persist after losing both Ohio and Pennsylvania on the backs of that demographic's vote for rival Hillary Clinton, some have rightly started questioning whether Wright is the vehicle for Obama's enemies to, however subtly, make race an issue. Obama's campaign, which has lately been quick to jump on perceived attacks (all three campaigns seem sensitive lately) can't have been happy with the candidate's proclamation on Fox News yesterday: "The fact that is my former pastor ... makes it a legitimate issue," Obama said, per USA Today.

-- But as was evident last week, John McCain walks what could become an increasingly impossible tightrope when the issue of Rev. Wright comes up. On one hand, McCain can be tarnished by even associating with what might be seen as exploitation of some kinds of racism, and he's worked hard to avoid any. See his response, in a personal email to and via pressure on the chairwoman of the North Carolina Republican Party last week. He has repeatedly said that he wants the contest to be fought out on issues, rather than on attacks. But on the other, he has not only failed to hold his own party responsible -- Tar Heel Republicans are reportedly going ahead with plans to air the ad -- but he's also called Wright an issue, which he did yesterday at a media availability in Florida, as Fox News' Mosheh Oinounou reports. "Senator Obama himself says it's a legitimate political issue so I would imagine that many other people would share that view and it will be in the arena." The Obama campaign hit back hard, saying McCain is "sinking to a level that he specifically said he'd avoid." Full statement here.

-- On the other hand, Obama still has to get through a Democratic primary, which he can do with big wins in North Carolina and Indiana. After a few weekend polls, Obama is running ahead of Clinton in both states -- up 15.5 points in North Carolina and up 3 points in Indiana, according to the latest RCP Indiana and North Carolina Averages.

...more at the link

Imagine the fuss if Barack Obama had pledged to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel.

He'd be regarded as green, unready for the presidency, prone to hyperbole, untested and unvetted.
If his comment had rattled key allies, from Saudi Arabia to Britain, the critics would have pounced.
And yet Senator Clinton's extreme rhetoric in the Philly debate was barely noted by the media.
And some say she gets no respect.

My best information is that Sen. Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright have talked exactly once since the first baubble of controversy in early March. The conversation was not especially pleasant.

Joe Klein writes:

And worse, Wright's purpose now seems quite clear: to aggrandize himself--the guy is going to be a go-to mainstream media source for racial extremist spew, the next iteration of Al Sharpton--and destroy Barack Obama. Maybe. But more likely, Wright is not content for the world to see him as a surrogate for Barack Obama, whom he regularly and repeatedly minimizes as a "politician."

A paradox: when Wright's sermons first saw the bandwith of air on ABC News and elsewhere, Obama allies and Wright supporters begged reporters to broadcast and publish the full sermons and to provide relevant context. Well, now the cable networks are content to let Wright talk for as long as he desires; CNN seemed to jettison their entire schedule last night in order to broadcast Wright's entire speech to the NAACP. Everyone wanted Wright's full context: now they have him.

New Mexico Senator and superdelegate throws his support behind the Land of Lincolner.

“To make progress, we must rise above the partisanship and the issues that divide us to find common ground. We must move the country in a dramatically new direction.”

Campaigning in the Hudson Valley, Lazio continued a two-day assault on Clinton's support of maintaining the 18-cent federal gas tax and then used tough rhetoric to declare that "trust" and "character" were campaign issues during an evening fundraiser in Manhattan that raised more that $1 million.

Clinton, meanwhile, lashed out at Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax, calling it "a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies...."
...
Honestly, why take the 18 cents out of the federal budget? Why not take it out of the oil company profits? The $10 billion in revenue the federal government would lose, at a time when our roads are crumbling and bridges literally collapsing, is only a quarter of Exxon Mobil's annual profits:

"If Hillary picks the person who saved her campaign then her press secretary will be Rush Limbaugh," - a NRO reader. I think Bill Kristol and Karl Rove will be close seconds. And Pat Buchanan not far behind.

Isn't it a relief, by the way, for the MSM to have a presidential campaign in which no issues are actually discussed? This Wright-stuff is amazing to me. It's all the MSM seems to care about. Even coverage of McCain is now about his attitude toward an unhinged black pastor from Chicago.
Hey: it beats discussing war, debt, the economy, torture, and terrorism. Because it enables America to return to the classic boomer racial-cultural wars that are all the MSM truly knows how to cover. There's nothing to be done right now but to duck and cover. And emerge when actual questions of actual salience emerge.

A group of 29 legislators came out to endorse Barack Obama today. Among the locals on the list were Reps. Alma Adams and Pricey Harrison along with Sen. Katie Dorsett.

However, the heavy hitters on the agenda were Rep. Dan Blue, a one-time U.S. Senate candidate and very well respected committee chairman in the House, and Sen. Tony Rand, the Senate majority leader all around power broker in the Senate.

Two points about Rand's speech today: It sounded a little un-Rand-like. Rand is known for his home-spun colloquy that borders on the elegant at times. I asked him if the words were his own. He acknowledged that the campaign had written part of it, which I think is pretty standard operating procedure for these kinds of announcements.

However, after the newser when he was just fielding questions, Rand delivered some very Rand-like lines. The best, by far, came in response to a question about the flag-pin and Rev. Wright controversies and whether they would hurt Obama in Rand's district, which includes Ft. Bragg.



...more at the link including the list of NC State lawmakers endorsing Obama