Or
Why Jeremiah Wright is Obama’s Monica
Last night, we saw exactly why Barack Obama has a Jeremiah Wright problem. Just as Bill Clinton “lied” to us about Monica Lewinsky by telling us something that may be true but was clearly meant to deceive us, Obama is hiding behind the closely parsed “specific statement” defense to deflect criticism of his relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.
I didn’t care that Bill Clinton was fellated by Monica Lewinsky. And I don’t care that Barack Obama came to terms with what it really means to be “Black in America” because Jeremiah Wright helped him to understand it. As far as racial issues are concerned, I share Wright’s perspective, and think that what Obama is telling America is pure pandering.
And in my opinion, Bill Clinton was a great president, who could have been among the greatest ever had it not been for the distraction caused by his dishonesty about a personal indiscretion. That dishonesty allowed the far right wing to make Bill Clinton’s sex life the most important topic in America for two years.
Last night, Hillary Clinton told us why Barack Obama cannot be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Jeremiah Wright is Obama’s Monica Lewinsky, and last night Hillary Clinton held up a stained blue dresses for just a moment for everyone to see when she said “…and I think that it wasn’t only the specific remarks, but…with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas to put a message in.”
And Jeremiah Wright’s closet is full of stained blue dresses. Some of them aren’t actually blue, and some of them are really stained, but that won’t matter. There are enough stained blue dresses in that closet that every time someone drags out any garment from Wright’s closet, people are going to be looking for that stain.
Bill Clinton was nearly hounded out of office because of a stained blue dress, and the questions that it raised about his character. To this day, the existence of that stained blue dress continues to allow people to question everything that Bill Clinton says and does, in the cause of looking for another stain.
Bill Clinton was able to survive in office not just because he had extraordinary gifts as a politician, but because he had been through enough political crises to know exactly how to use those gifts to survive. Bill Clinton had failed in the past, knew what didn’t work, and what did work.
Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton, is an extraordinarily gifted politician. But unlike Bill Clinton, Obama has never lost a governorship, then come back having learned from his mistakes and win that office back. Barack Obama has never faced the loss of the House and Senate and disasterously low approval ratings, and won re-election to the office of President four years later.
Barack Obama has never in his life faced anything remotely as challenging as those things that prepared Bill Clinton to survive in office despite a stained blue dress. And all the gifts that a politician can have won’t make up for the lack of knowledge that can only come from experience in dealing with political crises.
Obama supporters, and the media elite, can wail and gnash their teeth about Hillary Clinton pulling out a stained blue dress at last night’s debate. But they need to realize that Hillary Clinton has had that stained blue dress since this campaign began, and pulled it out not to hurt Barack Obama, but to keep the White House out of the hands of the GOP. The Republicans have had the same stained blue dress, and they have many, many more, and they won’t wait until it looks like they might lose in November before waving them around.
Its time for Democrats to face reality, and realize that if Barack Obama is the nominee, the political landscape won’t be one of ideas, it will be a GAP warehouse full of stained blue dresses, with Karl Rove and his ilk as the warehouse managers.
Front page
and just because Obama thinks this stuff is
stupid or the “old kind of politics” or not what he wants to be talking about, etc, nothing will change— because the media and GOP love this stuff and prefer it to anything else.
He’s the only one who wants to have a “new kind of politics” —you can’t have that without the press and the opposition agreeing, and they’re happy the way things are.
He's not ready
That’s the bottom line.
Yeah, I heard that “turn the Church newsletter over to Hamas” and thought, Whoa, that sounds pretty lethal, even though it might be slow-acting….
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Jeremiah Wright
The problem is that Bill Clinton campaigned at Trinity UCC. In fact, Bill Clinton must have campaigned at dozes of churches like that. Hillary cultivated the support of Al Sharpton when she was running for Senate. The Democratic party has been going to the churches of angry black ministers for decades, how can we now turn around and say these are not good people?
The OFB thinks that she isn't running on it
because it’s a non-issue. It’s really bizarre but they think that since Hillary can’t use it, the GOP can’t use it. I keep pointing out that Hillary can’t use it because she’s a Democrat and it would alienate Democratic voters. Now, the OFB
has no problems alienating Democratic voters (just like they have no problem alienating two states) so they think this is a bogus argument.
That’s where the problem comes in. They think the lack of hysterical impact in the Dem party means that it’s a non-story.
repeat after me...
The problem is that Bill Clinton campaigned at Trinity UCC. In fact, Bill Clinton must have campaigned at dozes of churches like that. Hillary cultivated the support of Al Sharpton when she was running for Senate.
repeat this until you start believing it…
Hillary CLinton is more than an appendage to her husband.
As for Sharpton, I’m sure that Clinton will turn that right back around on McCain, turning him not only into a racist, but a hypocrite….
All we’re seeing is the “nice” Hillary Clinton. But this is someone who knows how to take the opportunity for a counter-punch and make it a round-house punch. Remember what she did to Obama when he tried to bring up Walmart?
Not only did she throw Rezko back at him, but she did it in the middle of her answer, and then gave Obama something else to respond to. That’s how this game is played…. if Obama goes back to Rezko when he responds, he loses because he bring more attention to something that he doesn’t want to talk about. And not responding just leaves it out there. By throwing Rezko in the MIDDLE of her response (Obama’s Walmart thing was at the end of his, which creates an entirely different dynamic) she made Obama decide how he wanted to lose on Rezko. He lost on the topic anyway.
disconnect
It’s really bizarre but they think that since Hillary can’t use it, the GOP can’t use it.
Obama supporters are completely disconnected from reality. You point out to them that Obama doesn’t seem to be able to connect with white voters, and they come back at you with his victory in Idaho.
And they really believe that getting 2.8% of the number of Idahoans who voted in the 2004 general election to show up at a Democratic caucus is proof that he can connect with white voters, and there is nothing to worry about….
me, I worry about that other 97.2%
One of these things is not like the other, Pt III
between a campaign stop, or a politically cultivated association, to being a parishoner for 20 years.
And once again, I don’t have a problem with Wright’s remarks for the most part. The HIV conspiracy is atrocious, and he needs to be educated before he causes more damage in his own community. His remarks towards Hillary Clinton have made me livid, and I don’t want to see the controversy die down, until that is addressed.
The problem is that to a lot of people, what Wright said was wrong and offensive. It will come back to bite him in the general, and he is not that astute at diverting an attack, as Clinton is.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
"he is not that astute at diverting an attack, as Clinton is"
That’s a bold statement considering Obama’s unfavorables are 39% compared to Clinton’s 53% and (unattacked) McCain’s 40%. ABC/WaPo Poll: 4/16/08
Regardless or whether Obama’s responses to Wright and Bitter were satisfactory to you on a personal level, his national lead over Clinton is as high as ever. link link
I know the full force of rightwing attacks have not begun, but Obama has still been hit pretty hard by the conservative machine. Almost daily WSJ op-eds, a new Wright development every night on FOX, McCain mocks him in every appearance…etc. I know there’s more to come, but so far Obama has weathered it all as well as could be expected - the numbers bear this out. But I don’t get why you act as if there is nothing in reserve for Hillary. The VRWC
has been accomodating to her since mid February, but we all know that will change if she’s the nominee. Still, Obama leads.
A year ago Obama was an African American, one term Senator, with the name Barack Hussein Obama, gearing up for a presidential campaign against a former VP candidate and a member of the most politically connected, successful democratic family in a generation. He is now, somehow, the frontrunner for the nomination. And I’m delusional for thinking he’s a skilled politician and can hold his own in a contentious campaign?
I wasn't here during the Rev. Wright
kerfluffle. I was still hanging out at another blog.
My take on it was that the real issue was Obama’s judgment. Wright is electoral kryptonite.
You can’t associate with a person like that if you want to run for high office. Or someone like Rezko, Ayers, Auchi and/or Meeks. The same goes for mobsters, bigots, or radicals of any kind.
Meeting them or getting your picture taken with them isn’t “associating.”
————————————————————————
“If I was Vice-President, you know what I’d do?
Pretty much anything I wanted to!
Vote for me!” - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)
yes, you are delusional
And I’m delusional for thinking he’s a skilled politician and can hold his own in a contentious campaign?
yes. because you actually think that Obama got where he is on his own merits.
Obama “won” a whole bunch of states that Clinton didn’t compete in, and the democrats won’t win. SOLELY because he is black, he has won in a whole bunch of states where afrincan americans make up a substantial part of the electorate who gave him overwhelming support. (and don’t try and tell me that some white guy with Obama’s record and schtick would have gotten that kind of support against Clinton this year. That’s not merely ’delusional”, its straight-jacket-and-rubber-room insane).
Obama hasn’t “beaten” Hillary. She has either soundly defeated him, closely defeated him, or lost by a narrow margin to him, in every state that Democrats have to win in November to win the white house — and those are the states that she has focussed on.
Its easy to win when the other side just ante’s up and throws in the hand without looking at the cards, or when you have the deck stacked in your favor. But when the other side decides to play, and you can’t rely on a stacked deck, if you can’t win a couple of big hands, you should find another table to play at….because you aren’t ready for this one.
Obama hasn't been hit hard at all
Honestly, if you’ve been watching politics starting from the Clinton years, I don’t see how the statement that “Obama has still been hit pretty hard by the conservative machine” is anything other than laughable. Heck, if you’ve been watching politics since 2000. Heck, if you’ve been watching politics since 2004.
And worst of all, Obama seemed unprepared to meet the attacks. I was live-blogging, so I got no body language, but even I could here the careful parsing. And apparently the visuals are much, much worse.
(That might account for the pundits, and me, thinking that the debate was close: We were listening to the words. Perhaps the voters were looking at the images…)
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
That’s a bold statement
That’s a bold statement considering Obama’s unfavorables are 39% compared to Clinton’s 53% and (unattacked) McCain’s 40%
more Obot self-delusion.
For sixteen straight years, Clinton has been getting attacked. For the last six months, she’s been getting attacked from all sides, including people who should know better — Obama and his supporters.
Meanwhile, Obama has gotten a free pass… every month or so, the media might say something unflattering about Obama, but then they drop it.
But Obots think that because Clinton has played nice for virtually the entire campaign, while the Obot have viciously attacked her and her character for the last six months, that Obama is invulnerable.
This isn’t actually “delusion”. its “mania”. but its still bonkers either way.
Thanks Paul
You said what I was about to say. I really think a lot of the Obama’s supporters where 2 when the rest of the American public saw Clinton get attacked for not staying home to bake cookies(it burns me he said that shit last night). They didn’t know about Clinton, until the Precious had to beat her, and think all this negative stuff is brand new, no one ever heard it before. It works with other young voters, who never heard it before. To us old-timers(which is funny, cuz I’m only 28, but remember the Bush-Clinton election starkly) this is old news. Her negatives can’t go any lower, but the OFB
refuses to acknowledge that.
And they are delusional in thinking that the national polls mean anything. Look at the electoral map fools, and the cry yourself to sleep at night.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Lets get some facts straight
Ignoring the fact that primary results between HRC/BHO aren’t transitive to GE contests vs. McCain (which really renders your point moot on its own)…
1) NY, CA, MA, RI, NJ - I’d be really insane to think Obama could win these solid blue states. The only state that lends credibility to this category is OH. Obama doesn’t need it to win. FL/MI if you count uncontested elections. Obama doesn’t need FL and outperforms HRC in MI vs McCain.
2) NM, NH, NV - Obama has polled considerably better than HRC vs. McCain in each of these states.
3) MO, CT - MO: likely red state, but HRC probably has a better chance.
4) WA, MN, WI, ME, (OR) - Whoops. Forgot about these? I think they are material to this discussion. (note: I don’t include reliably blue VT, HI, IL, MD, DE. That would be delusional)
Not to mention, CO, IA, VA, (NC) - part of Obama’s electoral map.
Obama victory:
ME, VT, NH, NY, NJ, MA, CT, DE, MD, PA, DC, MI, MN, WI, IL, IA, CO, NM, NV, CA, OR, WA = 278
VA, NC, OH, MT, ND, AK, FL, MO, AK could be competitive too. That’s a big map for cash-poor, age-rich McCain to cmapiagn in. Decidedly tougher than duking it out in OH/FL. Its also a lot of Sen/Rep races for Obama to boost.
All this is a nice way of saying your big state argument doesn’t sway me.
That Ain't Wright!
Twenty years ago, a young man named Barack Obama attended his first Church “sermon” given by Rev Wright. He was moved to tears by the “sermon” and decided to join the Church right at that very moment.
What was in the sermon? “Greedy White Men” and “Hiroshima (undoubtedly the God Damn America bashing kind)”.
Obama STILL is not over the Rev Wright scandal by a long shot. The media knows this and they’re holding it over his head, waiting to take him out in the general election. They are going to pull this story from Obama’s own book out at the most opportune moment.
Obama says he would have quit the Church if he had heard any of the offending comments. But the truth is, according to his own book, that he decided to JOIN the Church after hearing the offensive remarks.
Wright Is Paula Jones
Or maybe Linda Tripp. Or Luciana Goldberg. Okay, I can’t quite make the analogy work, but to me Wright is damaging not only on his own, but because he leads to Ayers. Wright said stuff, Ayers did stuff.
I’ve thought this all along, the real reason Wright is so harmful is it makes it easier to hang Ayers around Obama’s neck. While it’s true that Ayers isn’t just some English Professor, it’s also true that he isn’t Obama’s father figure or so close that it would be easy to impute all of his past actions - things that happened decades ago - onto Obama if that’s all there was. The only reason it works is because Obama’s association with Wright, someone who has been exceptionally close to Obama, makes Obama suspect in some folks’ eyes. Wright’s comments on 9/11 on their own are bad, but they make it easier for the GOP to convince people that Obama sympathizes with Ayers, just look at what his pastor, his mentor, said about a terrorist attack on Americans. Then look at what Ayers did.
I don’t agree with that reasoning. I don’t believe Obama agrees with what Ayers did. I don’t think Obama agrees with everything Wright has said. But this isn’t about fairness, it’s about politics. And because Obama is a new face, because he isn’t used to these kind of attacks, they’re going to be devastating to him in November. And contrary to the reams of bullshit written about how brilliantly Obama has handled Wright and how brilliantly Obama will handle Ayers, it simply isn’t true. Wright has only gone away because 1) the press is in the tank for Obama in the primary, but not the general, 2) his democratic supporters are more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on Wright than independents and Republicans (or perhaps even some Clinton supporters) will be, and 3) Clinton has pulled her punches on all of it (yes, even last night), McCain won’t.
Last night was just a preview. Obama’s not ready.
BDB: How many more
of these unsavory associations does Obama have?
Wright is bad all by himself. Ayers isn’t, but throw in Rezko, Auchi, McClurkin, and Meeks, and you start to wonder.
————————————————————————
“Real ponies don’t oink” - Patrick McManus
Oxy, is that your thinking or
your example of the hypothetical rightwing framing? I’m crossing my fingers that its the latter - because its a distortion of the truth usually reserved for freepers and Fox.
Audacity of Hope sermon transcript
I have never said that Wright won’t go away. Of course it will be used. But I think Obama will survive it.
::
Lambert et al… I am old enough to have voted for Clinton at least once. I remember the attacks on the Clintons, Gore, Kerry… etc. I know what’s coming and I still contend, we have seen more than just trailers for it.
::
Strawman alert:
Clinton has not played nice. The TaylorMarsh/Hillaryis44/nyDD crowd have viciously attacked Obama. I don’t think Obama is invulnerable. I also don’t think he’s fatally flawed.
refuses to acknowledge that.”
::
” Her negatives can’t go any lower, but the OFB
I heard that argument in December when her negatives were 9% better. Just because HRC has been attacked by the right for 16 years, doesn’t mean they don’t have more ammo in reserve. She is no less vulnerable than Obama.
You're gonna have to provide
a link for that, manah, because I have only seen her negatives go down. Now among the hardcore Hillary Haters, of course they have gone up, she is like a cancer to them. Your feelings about the cancer when its remission are a lot lower than they are when it is front and center.
And One of These Things Is Not Like The Other Pt IV
Clinton has not played nice. The TaylorMarsh/Hillaryis44/nyDD crowd have viciously attacked Obama.
Around here we have been very clear to delineate attacks made on Clinton by the OFB
, from the ones made by Obama. Not so for you though, thanks for the reminder. And their viciousness has been nothing compared to the way Hillary has been attacked, so I wouldn’t go there if I were you.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
Taylor Marsh? MyDD?
Being attacked on a couple of blogs is not being hit hard, mostly because of the incredibly limited audience, and it’s not an indication of anything about how Clinton herself is hitting or not hitting Obama.
I agree she isn’t playing nice, but she is pulling her punches. She has not hit him on the parts of the San Francisco comments about “anti-immigrant antipathy or how Pennsylvanians are hostile to people who don’t look like them. There have been no ads in dark shadow with photos of Rezko and hints about Obama being corrupt. There have been no ads with Wright or Ayers.
Clinton is walking a very fine line, she’s trying to ensure that the Democratic party doesn’t nominate an unvetted candidate who may be unable to withstand GOP attacks (and, yes, win the nomination herslef), but she also doesn’t want to bloody him so badly that he can’t beat McCain. I honestly believe that Clinton will do what she said last night and do everything in her power to make Obama the next president if he’s the nominee, she just doesn’t think that’s going to be enough.
Fav/Unfav link (page
Fav/Unfav link (page 4:pdf)
“Around here we have been very clear to delineate attacks made on Clinton by the OFB
, from the ones made by Obama. Not so for you though, thanks for the reminder.”
The delineation is absent with every reference to the Wilentz article and every argument that starts, “The OFB gets its cues from the top”. Sorry if I was unclear, but “Clinton has not played nice. The TaylorMarsh/Hillaryis44/nyDD crowd have viciously attacked Obama.” was meant as two unconnected assertions. I stand by each sentence on its own. I don’t consider sentence #2 as proof of #1.
manahmanah, your link to DailyKos omits part of the "sermon"
Why is that?
Why is this part of Rev Wright’s sermon missing from that DailyKos diary?
Or is Obama making things up?
—————-
“White Man’s Greed”
Race; Posted on: 2008-03-28 17:35:39
Obama’s very first service at Wright’s church was … controversial
By Mickey Kaus
On his radio show yesterday, Hugh Hewitt played excerpts of Barack Obama reading from his autobiography, Dreams of My Father. In one, Obama remembers a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
[T]he pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting title Hope.
“The painting depicts a harpist,” Reverend Wright explained, “a woman who at first glance appears to be sitting atop a great mountaintop. Until you take a closer look and see that the woman is bruised and bloodied, dressed in tattered rags, the harp reduced to a single frayed string. Your eye is then drawn down to the scene below, down to the valley below, where everywhere are the ravages of famine, the drumbeat of war, a world groaning under strife and deprivation.
It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, aprtheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.”
And so it went, a meditation on a fallen world. While the boys next to me doodled on their church bulletin, Reverend Wright spoke of Sharpesville and Hiroshima, the callousness of policy makers in the White House and in the State House. …
There's so much poisonous shit floating around
the rightwing blogs—from gay lovers of Obama and worse — to Khaddafi and Wright, and so very much more—not one Dem blog has even scratched the surface of what’s circulating and will bubble up in the summer and fall. And then there’s all the racist stuff—that “boy” comment the other day was the GOP not even making an effort.
Non political link
Audacity of Hope Sermon
I think Mickey Kaus and Hugh Hewitt have an agenda, Oxy. Link?
Manah, A couple of things
First, this is a national poll, like I said, of course her unfavorables are going up with some people, I would like one that looks at probable Dem voters.
Two, Obama’s favorability rating has consistently gone up, but it’s soft support and he hasn’t been subjected to the harsh media treatment either, whereas Clinton’s fluctuate. The lowest they ever hit since she became a senator, was before the NH primary, which provides proof for my theory that the more she is attacked, the more support she gets, which is why she is a boost in the general. The media’s penchant for unfairly attacking Dems will backfire on the media, IMO.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
are you denying the accuracy of the Wilentz piece?
The delineation is absent with every reference to the Wilentz article
While there wee aspects of Wilentz’s analysis that I don’t think were very rigorous, the factual framework he provides proves the case that the Obama campaign actively encouraged casting Hillary Clinton as running a racist campaign.
Why are we bothering with Mickey Kaus?
Back to the basics in Paul’s post, not the distractions:
“… the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas …”
Er, is this true? Because either way, it’s a big problem for somebody….
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
already polls are showing McCain getting
independents, disgruntled Republicans, and even antiwar folks, so …
Meanwhile, Hispanics, white women, old people, and non-college Dems are all Hillary.
I've read it four times
He conflates Obama, surrogates, supporters, journalists and everyone else - which is exactly what I was accused of.
Joe Trippi, Eugene Robinson, Earl Hutchinson, Frank Rich, Bob Herbert, James Clyburn, Maureen Dowd, Donna Brazile, the entire press corp are all cited as evidence of Obama race card playing. None of them represents the Obama campaign!
Jesse Jackson Jr’s rant is the only real evidence of race being unwarrentedly injected by the Obama campaign. First, his rant was hardly taken seriously. In fact, it damaged the credibility of Obama’s campaign. Second, JJJr has been off the TV ever since. Quietly, uncerimoniously put in the box.
Other problems:
Bradley effect: only hypothetically suggested by non-Obama folks. No outright claims that it occured. Not even an attack on the Clintons if it were to be claimed.
“Obama complained during the South Carolina debate—the former president was supposedly off on a race-baiting tear of his own.”: The link isanything but.
Anecdotes are referred to as racist accusations by way of very contrived, speculative assumptions.
There is a total disregard for the difference between “racist” and “racially insensitive”. <- this is the biggest reason its still an issue today. Both sides have conflated this nuance.
Ouch! That'll Leave a Mark
Dick Polman’s debate take - http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/2008/04/o…
it wasn't just Jackson--it was that scowling Susan woman,
who was on MSNBC every day for him and then disappeared, and it was Axelrod, and it was state campaign workers everywhere, and it was his own multiple emails to the media for ages and ages.
Anyone who says Donna Brazile-Nutt isn't an Obama Shill
hasn’t been paying attention.
————————————————————————
“Real ponies don’t oink” - Patrick McManus
You Left Off a Character, myiq2xu
Rashid Khalidi (see http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/17/…). I don’t know if I would consider him toxic, since I don’t know enough about him, but I’m pretty sure the GOP smear machine will. And I agree with Jeralyn that Obama doesn’t help himself with self-aggrandizing statements like “Nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti- Semitism than I have.” Sometimes a little humility and honesty goes a long way (sometimes it doesn’t, but it’s critical for a politician to be able to distinguish the situations).
Again, I don’t think the problem is Obama’s own beliefs. He’s a centrist as far as I can tell. It’s his newness to most American voters and whether the GOP will be able to define him by his associates because most people don’t have a clear definition of him from his history with them. But, yeah, for such a young guy, he does have some interesting friends.
And I’m not sure the fact the GOP will slime him means he can’t be the nominee or even that he can’t win, but I do worry about his lack of experience handling a sustained, relentless, no-holds-barred attack. He’s never had to and his performance last night, particularly his apparent shock that Ayers and others came up even though Hannity had been yelling about it, make me worry that he’s become too dependent on his media darling status. When we all know he isn’t the media’s darling, he’s their fling. McCain is their darling.
here's just one of the campaign's memos accusing racism--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12… —
“Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has prepared a detailed memo listing various instances in which it perceived Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign to have deliberately played the race card in the Democratic primary.
The memo, which was obtained by the Huffington Post and has been made public elsewhere, is believed to have been given to an activist and contains mostly excerpts from different media reports. It lists the contact info and name of Obama’s South Carolina press secretary, Amaya Smith, and is broken down into five incidents in which either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive.
The document provides an indication that, in private, the Obama campaign is seeking to capitalize on the view - and push the narrative - that the Clintons are using race-related issues for political leverage. In public, the Obama campaign has denied that they are trying to propagate such a perception, noting that the document never was sent to the press….
…
The Obama camp did not return repeated requests for comment. But campaign spokesperson Candice Tolliver told Politico that, in regards to the race-based comment: “Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this really an isolated situation or is there something bigger behind all of this?”
…”
Scowling Susan Woman
(sigh) If only I could get away with saying that ;)
Susan Rice? Link?
McCain gaining Obama supporters? Link?
Soft suport? Link? My linked source has Obama’s “Strong/Somewhat favorable” at 28/28. McCain 17/26, HRC 22/23.
“The media’s penchant for unfairly attacking Dems will backfire on the media, IMO.” Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. What are we arguing about, again?
Real classy, p_luk
All politicians pander. But only Obama’s pandering gets compared to covering up an extra-marital affair.
I “don’t care” about Clinton getting blowjobs from women other than his wife because it isn’t my business. Not because I approve of the practice. On top of that, it occured in the context of an age/power dynamic that would have driven every pro-feminist Hillary supporter off the rails if a Republican had been caught in a similar context.
Bill Clinton was covering up a sleazy and deceitful, if private, act.
You cannot compare another politician harboring private and politically controversial views to that. If you want a realistic comparison, Obama’s statements on Wright are more like Hillary blabbering about the Second Amendment.
The Clenis! The Clenis!
All power to the mighty signifier that is The Clenis
!
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
manah--
AP—McCain gains while Dems falter — “… John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall. … Around a third of the voters newly supporting McCain lean Democratic and mostly backed Democrat John Kerry in 2004. They are moderates who disapprove of Bush and the war in Iraq, but find McCain likeable, much more so than they did last November. …” — http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008…
just one of Susan’s — about Ferraro — http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=…
(there are a ton more—starting with NH, and then she disappeared)
No, No, No
On top of that, it occured in the context of an age/power dynamic
Lewinsky went after Clinton. Period. Full stop. Do I agree with his actions? Not my place to agree with them. Should he have considered the power imbalance before doing anything? Yes, but he is not the first man or woman to make that mistake. And Clinton’s actions were not a strong powerful guy pressuring a young woman into doing things for him, which would be sexual harassment. Some women are attracted to powerful men, and Lewinsky was one of them.
And lambert is not attempting to draw a comparison between the two. He is saying the GOP will make the comparison, because of the way they both parsed their statements about a controversial issue.
Manah,
Yeah, I know your link said that. I looked at the trends from previous polls, at your very own link to draw that conclusion. Obama’s Strong Favorable rating stayed about the same, while his Somewhat Favorable rating went up. That is soft support.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. What are we arguing about, again?
I believe it will only backfire on them if Clinton is the nominee. Seeing a woman being battered for 16 years tends to garnish sympathy from people. When the media bashing was at its hardest her favorable ratings soared to 92 levels, right before the NH primary. So yes, against Clinton, the media bashing will backfire. Obama, not so much, because people haven’t had time to feel sympathetic to him.
And, lambert, yes the Trinity Church bulletin printed something from Hamas, and have now taken it down from the wesbite.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that...
…an Obama supporter would miss the point of the entire post.
You cannot compare another politician harboring private and politically controversial views to that.
yes I can. because I’m not comparing the acts themselves, but “the cover-up”, and the implications for the cover-up.
Bill Clinton tried to hide the truth by making a factually true, but contexturally false, and got caught because of a stained blue dress. Barack Obama is trying to hide the truth with the exact same kind of deliberate parsing of his own words as Bill Clinton.
The only point of non-comparison is that Clinton didn’t know about the stained blue dress when he said “I never had sex with that woman.” But Obama has to know the evidence is out there, and thinks he can keep it hidden.
Obama’s real problem is simple. There is this straight line of “radicalism” from him joining the Church to his “make guns illegal! Unrestricted abortions for everyone! Women on welfare can have as many kids on the public dole as they like!” questionairre filled out in 1996. And that line continues right through to his big claim to fame — his anti-war speech, which at that time was quite radical.
Lots of radicals have entered politics and been sucessful without changing their core beliefs — they simply adapt their methods from advocating immediate radical political change from outside the system to implementing incremental change aimed at radical transformation from inside the system.
And Obama’s whole schtick is that he is “safe”, he’s “mainstream”. Now Obama could probably get away with saying that he was a confused young man in 1988 when he joined the church, and that since that time he had rejected much of what he once believed, but that the church and its parishoners remain his “family.”
But because of the 1996 questionaire, he can’t get away with it. Eight years later, he’s still a radical, and just because he became a politician and acted like a politician doesn’t mean he’s not still a radical.
So now he’s stuck. And we’re screwed if he gets the nomination.
Well....
… I guess I’ve written enough on Obama that I don’t think he’s a radical, Paul. Not now and I can’t imagine then. And if I’m wrong, it’s a heckuva phonebooth he’s going to have to find to change into his progressive unitard. And if I’m wrong, it’s also tragic what’s about to happen to him; see the latest on the fucking lapel pin, for pity’s sake. How did that one get out of the box?
Heck, if he were, I’d be more inclined to vote for him, which is like CD saying if she likes movie that’s box office poison.
What I ought to do is go read his first book, the good one; presumably the answers are in there.
Bottom line though is that if we’re having this conversation only now, that’s really bad. Not ready, not ready, not ready…
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Delusional Electoral Map
>ME, VT, NH, NY, NJ, MA, CT, DE, MD, PA, DC, MI, MN, WI, IL, IA, CO, NM, NV, CA, OR, WA = 278
>VA, NC, OH, MT, ND, AK, FL, MO, AK could be competitive too. That’s a big map
Talk about delusional. That’s a map for Hillary, not Obama. Obama has killed himself in PA,MI,FL,OH,MO,AK-and never had a realistic chance in VA or NC. The only way Obama can win is if ANY Democrat could win this year. Possible-but I wouldn’t bet the next 4 years on it.
But the Obama fans are determined to drag the party down with them rather than face reality: their man isn’t ready. One can only hope the Supers do the job they were created to do, and stop this insanity before it is too late.
the problem is that either he really was a radical, &
learned that what sells in Chicago won’t work for an ambitious guy who wants to go bigtime (but that would mean he would have stayed away from and/or dropped Wright and Ayers, etc, because we all know they’re politically damaging nationally)
—or—
he never was a radical at all and has always changed his stances to match whoever his current audience/market is, which is much much worse, and would cement the feeling that we don’t really know him at all.
i hear NJ and PA and OH would go McCain if it's
Obama.
Doesn't this concern you?
Obama’s unfavorables are 39% compared to Clinton’s 53%
And he still hasn’t been able to close the deal! With the huge temporary advantages he has in the primary.
Doesn’t this concern you at all?
MA, too
The OFB
is assuming that Obama will one all the Kerry states and he will need one more to win.
But Obama is not liked. Not by New England Liberals, not by Southern Democrats, and now not by rural Democrats. A lot of people have the incorrect impression that McCain is a moderate, and will vote for him. And that is a lot of people to have to persuade.
Like Kate Harding said “Not enough people hate McCain.”
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
amber....
that’s what I meant to say. I don’t think he’s a radical. I think he had to establish his street cred in South Side Chicago, and given his background that meant being just as “black”, if not “blacker” than any other South Side politician.
I suspect that the whole reason he went to law schook and joined Trinity Church is that he had no real street cred in Chicago as a “community organizer”, and that if he wanted to enter politics, it wasn’t going to be from the community, but from politically connected law offices.
Obama’s just ambitious — he’s not a megalomaniac, he’s just a narcissist. Narcissists don’t usually get that far in politics, because the disconnect between their own self-image and how others perceive them, makes them bad politicians. But Obama’s lived a charmed political life — and worst of all, he thinks he actually earned his way to where he is, when all he’s done is be black and “not Hillary Clinton”.
Watch the debate - that performance was of a narcissistic who is suddenly forced to deal with things outside his normal, narcissistic frame of reference. The questions weren’t especially tough, but they were relentless, and you can just see his inability to process what is happening.
It Has Been Interesting Watching Obama
and his reactions to things when they don’t go his way. He’s repeatedly seemed unable to admit error in any meaningful way. And, yes, he does seem at a loss whenever he gets any harsh questioning, not only as if he doesn’t expect it, but as if he genuinely doesn’t understand what’s going on. It’s very odd.
Odd?
It seems oddly… familiar.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.