Most Americans are fair people.

They do not like to see people treated unfairly. It is a part of our national psyche to support the underdog. Sometimes Americans react unpredictably when they see others treated unfairly. It would behoove some that are piling on Obama to recognize this in the American people. They may not support Obama but they do not wish to be part of any group that is seen as underhanded and unfair in their actions and words. Beware the backlash.

More and more people are starting to see that Obama cannot be held responsible for the words of this Reverend. They are beginning to recognize that this Reverend does not support Obama, for one reason or another, and is intentionally working to undermine his campaign. The American people may not be too bright about political complexities but sometimes they have great intuitive instincts. They will NOT permit Barack Obama to be railroaded out of this race. Bet on it.

He did it to himself.

This whole affair from the beginning has been to tie Obama to the Reverend with "guilt by association".

he spent 20 years listening to the pastor. How can he not be tied to him? Get real!! Most Americans are fair, and that's why Obama will never be able to convince the majority of Americans that his relationship with this man has nothing to do with who Obama is as a man. It has everything to do with it.

Most, in my opinion, do not think Obama agrees with the Reverend on his comments and will not join you in your condemnation.

will be held to the same standard? Her association with her husband? I'm not concerned with it, but the same argument can be made against her with "guilt by association" garbage. So does her relationship have anything to do with her husband, has their relationship shaped her thoughts and beliefs? Or just the good stuff, and none of the bad stuff? I guess she deserves to be tied to her husband and anything he's ever said. Good thing that's been clarified.

Her relationship with her husband??? Personally, I think that relationship helped to make Hillary the person she is today. She worked through a devastating time in her life, and did it without regard to public pressure to leave her husband. She did it her way, and I'm sure Chelsea is very glad her parents are together today. No, that's not a fair comparison. Bill Clinton was a beloved Democratic President until the Obamanation rolled over it.

Bill Clinton is no Reverend Wright.

I think his record regarding women is abominable, so that's why it's shocking so many feminists still view him in a positive light and defend him to such a degree. My point was and is, maybe some people think it made her cynical and sarcastic or "bitter." If you assert Reverend Wright, someone Obama heard on occasion at church, had such a vast influence on him, then you cannot discard the things that years of Bill cheating on and publicly humiliating Hillary has done. You see it as "made her stronger" and I don't. It's an opinion. Just like your opinion on what level of effect Rev. Wright has had on Senator Obama.

Bill Clinton was a beloved Democratic President by SOME, hardly all, until he retired and started campaigning for his wife, and then he opened his mouth. Nobody made him use the tactics he has used, nobody but Bill Clinton. Just because he got called on it, and accused Obama's campaign of "playing the race card" doesn't offer him a defense. He's a good ole' boy. He knew good and well what he was saying and doing. No he isn't a racist, but he has used racist tactics to exploit racism. Deny it all you want, but you cannot tell people they don't get to be offended. Because it is not just Obama that was offended. He doesn't order all blacks to be offended. Many were genuinely offended by Bill's words, not because Obama told them to be offended.

Exactly! Reverend Wright is NO Bill Clinton. He speaks truth to power, sure a truth some people (Republicans) do not want to hear about our foreign policy, but it doesn't make it less true. Bill Clinton wouldn't and couldn't do that, because it wouldn't be politically expedient. Reverend Wright doesn't have a history of exploiting women either. In fact, I can't even understand how you disagree with anything the Reverend said. We know the history of this country on domestic issues and foreign policy issues. What did he say, that you disagree with exactly? Black people haven't gotten a raw deal? We never meddle in the affairs of foreign countries, mainly for oil?

you know, the one with all the REPUBLICANS in it?

you believe a person is responsible for their preacher, she is too. she consorts with theocrats, nazis and other criminals that want to make the world biblical and everyone peons. How about that? Any opinion or are we only making rules for one and not for all?

The fact is that he and Hillary Clinton both want to have it both ways on most issues of division. One can play the crowd long and well, but it catches up.

By being a member of a popular congregation, he garnered lots of off the shelf virtue with which he's made much hay over the years. For all the goodies he's gotten from association with this man, there is a price, and the piper's calling. It's now time for the Pied Piper to pay the other piper, and, much as many of the accusations are misplaced, it's a package deal. This particular package is past its expiration date.

Mr. Obama got a lot of street cred by being a member of that church, and he used it for wholesale approval, just as he did with the "40 Days of Faith" tour in South Carolina.

He lost an early election by not being "black enough", and he compensated. The past sins are haunting him now, and any move he makes is bad. This may not be fatal to the campaign, but it's quite a comeuppance, and it's largely due to his casual attitude and using of a shortcut to power.

Religion is dangerous. Ethics aside, religion just shouldn't be a part of the political forum simply for its unruly volatility alone.

He's associated. That's the bottom line here: he was perfectly happy riding in the wake of Wright's popularity on the local stage and he certainly knew much of the substance of Wright's more controversial views; to say that he didn't is to admit gross obliviousness while still making it sound like he didn't inhale. He wanted it both ways and it backfired. Perhaps Wright is having a "first spouse" syndrome, and now that he's not a useful stepping-stone, he's been discarded. There's certainly an element of that, and some of the stain will wear off on Mr. Obama.

I said "most Americans are fair people". ???

"They will not permit Barack Obama to be railroaded out of this race."?

:shrug:

I'm thinking that's just a typo in the OP.

Fixed. Sometimes my mind outraces my fingers. :-)

will continue to morph Wright into Obama. I don't trust American's to make up their own minds - I used to think it was only Limbaugh republican's - not so sure anymore.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wuspols130.xml

Do you think Barack's stumbles will cause people to be more willing to accept the Gore candidacy? Especially if Obama is the vp? Both Obama and Clinton are acting like they know something is up and over the weekend Donna Brazile and Howard Dean both said things that sounded like they're moving towards the Denver Plan of inserting Al Gore after the primaries end in order to unify the party. Will most Americans accept this?

"inserted" to unify the party? Gore doesn't want to run he's made that perfectly clear and to "insert" him now would be an insult to all the candidates and all the people who have donated to, and worked for them.

But why won't he close the door about running. And why are Obama and Clinton acting so differently now? Suddenly they're more cordial and trying to be more civil? Do they know the fix is in? Some local campaign workers are starting to discuss the prospect of this so-called Denver Plan. Both Donna Brazile and Howard Dean seemed to hint at it this weekend. Here's some facts of why I think it may be possible (although it's probably still just a rumor-this is from Kos):

There is going to be a shakeup once the primaries end June 3. McAuliffe and Dean are part of it, as are the other party leaders. They can't afford to go into the convention with this mess so they're going to make a bold move. Expect to hear more about the Denver Plan local campaign workers have been talking about. It makes sense too for the following reasons (which someone else wrote up on another web site):

1. The primary is destroying both Obama and Clinton. How many of us will want to vote for either of them while McCain is a liberal republican and acceptable to moderates and many dems?
2. Gore has the moral authority as a nobel peace prize winner and oscar winner to unite the party and convince the American people to vote for him again.
3. He has executive experience and none of the others do (including the Republican McCain).
4. His profile is high after his movie and books have been so successful. Almost everyone in America thinks very highly of him, as opposed to Obama and Hillary.
5. Most of us dems believe he won in 2000 and it would be proper for him to finally become president.
6. The republicans are salivating at the chance to take on Obama because of the unfolding problems they see him experiencing or Hillary because it's believed that most Americans hate her.

let their pride, narcissism, or sense of self righteousness get in the way of doing whats right. McCain is a liberal Republican? Are you fucking kidding me? Maybe you ought to go back to that site and show them McCains "liberal" voting record.

And for the last time, Gore has stated in no uncertain terms that he does not want to be involved in this election. There is going to be no white knight riding in to save the day, we must save ourselves.

But think of what the media has said about him for years. They've convinced people he's not as conservative as Bush, and the voters will buy it. And Gore probably wouldn't have considered it before Dean asked him, except for the fact that the rising food prices are being blamed on him and will marginalize what he can do unless he is in political office. Look what has happened to Michael Moore. He used to be mainstream but republican hits have made him perceived to be a lunatic.

not off the top of my head. Everybody seemed to be a Pats fan until the Giants won.

There have been other brokered conventions too but not in the YouTube era where it could completely destroy the Democratic party. Is that why Gore hasn't ever closed the door on stepping in? Or why Howard Dean and now Terry McAulif (who has no authority over the party) are saying the superdelegates have to decide by June 15? So they will have time to act?

When he was impeached by the Republicans, the people thought that was unfair. They supported him by over 60% when he left office. They rejected the Republican attacks on Clinton. They did not think it was fair.

they regained the White House and kept a majority in the House and Senate for umpteen years.

did not receive the same redemption as Bill Clinton individually, and neither should they have??

nt

says. They understand that he can't tell a private citizen what he can or can't say.

and it would read that same. There are many who feel she has been treated very unfairly in this primary season. There are many who do not want to be part of any group that would treat another person like she has been treated.

Beware the backlash, indeed.

Otherwise she may have already been gone?

There are a lot of people, women in particular, who can really see what is being done to her. Their support is critical to her continued campaign and they are vigorously defending her.

Just as some see what is being done to Obama as a public lynching, others see what is being done to her as a public beating. IMO, the media is orchestrating the whole thing.