Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

The question to ask is who's driving the story? It's obviously someone or a group of someones with an agenda. With the Pats, it was a division rival/disgruntled ex-employee. With Obama, it's Hillary and the R's. That's what's manufactured about it. As I mentioned, Wright was the third attempt.

So if anyone pushing an agenda wants to discuss specifics that's fine, but they get to subject themselves to the same standards. That's obviously not happening here with McCain and until it does, **bleep** everyone who wants to promote it.

Once again, when/if McCain becomes entwined in a similar situation (i.e. his own trusted pastor decides to go ballistic and he refused to kick him to the curb for it), I'll be the first one to make sure he doesn't get my vote. That hasn't happened.

No one should pretend that Obama didn't know this (people with an agenda might dig through his past) was coming. If he was oblivious to the fact that this would eventually come out, he would have invited Wright show his face at his presidential bid announcement over a year ago. If Obama didn't want this kind of scrutiny, he shouldn't have run for president.

[miked]

Interestingly, the CNN ticker has an article about Hillary's polls going in the wrong direction, probably due to the fact that she's trying to get pledged delegates to switch and her whole lying (misspeaking, thanks Roger) stuff.

According to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the New York senator's personal approval rating has dropped markedly, and those that hold a negative view of her have reached 48 percent — the highest in that poll since March 2001. Just 37 percent now have a positive view of Clinton — down from 45 percent two weeks ago.

The new poll comes at the end of one of the most hostile months in the Democratic presidential primary race, during which surrogates for both campaigns resigned after uttering controversial statements, and controversy swirled around Obama over past statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

But despite fears by some of Obama's backers that the Wright controversy would take a toll on the Illinois senator and his presidential hopes, the new poll shows his approval rating has remained virtually unchanged at 49 percent. Only 32 percent of Americans give him a negative approval rating.

I think her win-at-all-costs attitude is probably wearing thin on people. Doesn't help to have Bill Clinton blabbering about how:

Clinton added that the recent rough tone of the campaign didn’t trouble him. "I don't give a riff about all this name-calling that's going on. They've been going on ever since Iowa. I've heard them say all these things about her,” he said. “Apparently it's okay to say bad things about a girl."

[Ksyrup]

Similar to the other polls mentioned earlier....



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- New polls show many Democratic voters could swing their support to Sen. John McCain in the general election if their candidate isn't nominated.

A poll shows 44 percent of Democrats said they like Sen. John McCain, and 42 percent don't.

The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, taken March 14-16, shows the percentage of Sen. Barack Obama supporters who said they'd be dissatisfied or upset if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination has gone up -- from 26 percent in January, just after Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, to 41 percent now.

The poll suggests if Obama wins, a majority of Clinton supporters -- 51 percent -- would be dissatisfied or upset. The number was 35 percent in January.

The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 7.5 percentage points.

"That's the only thing that could make John McCain president ... if the Democrats get divided," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday.

According to a Gallup Poll taken March 7-22, about one in five Obama supporters -- or 19 percent -- said they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

If Obama's the nominee, more than one in four Clinton supporters -- or 28 percent -- said they'd vote for McCain.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

"That's the only thing that could make John McCain president ... if the Democrats get divided," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Wednesday.

Crack analysis there by the party chairman. That's obviously why they pay him the big bucks to help win places like New Hampshire......and Iowa.......and Michigan......and Virginia........and New York......and Ohio.........and Pennsylvania......AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

[Ksyrup]

Paul Begala this morning used the Wayne's World "when monkeys fly out of my butt" line when asked whether he thought Hillary would step aside before the primaries ended.

[Buccaneer]

I and others brought up Hillary's negatives when this started last year. Some discounted that but I still believe there is (and always have been) a good reason for the high negatives, which is playing a factor in the race.

[Fighter of Foo]

[quote=Mizzou B-ball fan;1693155]Once again, when/if McCain becomes entwined in a similar situation (i.e. his own trusted pastor decides to go ballistic and he refused to kick him to the curb for it), I'll be the first one to make sure he doesn't get my vote. That hasn't happened.
/quote]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Am I missing some sarcasm here?

[Mac Howard]

Frankly, it's just not plausible to suggest that you always share the same feelings or views as someone you know.

This is astonishing from a man who would be a journalist (Roland S. Martin
CNN Contributor)

1) I am not standing as a unifying candidate for President of the USA

2) feelings and views? - rabid hatred for the country Obama would lead

3) know? Obama describes him as his "spritual mentor".

Give me a break, guys. The guy is either blind as a bat politically or this is an unbelievably fawning attempt to sanitise this matter. If you don't believe that Obama is getting the mother and father of all sycophantic deals from some of the media then the above should change your mind. If Clinton or McCain had sat and listened to white supremacy speeches for 20 years without walking out and finding another church do you think the above sentence would have been written to sanitise it.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I agree with those who find this latest foible involving Senator Clinton's description of the Bosnia trip to be wholly illuminating -- and I totally agree with the conclusions of her biographer excerpted above. This is just who she is, and her relationship with truth will never be a comfortable one. Many people will vote for her based on policy, and many based on trust, but there really shouldn't be any doubt that this is the true person underneath it all -- the person who exaggerates the truth, and then essentially lies to cover up or cover over the initial exaggeration. It would be folly to expect anything different were she elected to an executive position.

This was stupid beyond belief from Clinton clearly trying for a little of the kudos of the kind that McCain rightly gets for his Vietnam experiences. But it's not unique to Clinton. Obama wasn't a professor, he was a mere lecturer. he didn't meet his wife at a significant event - he was married to her 4 years before the event took place. And so on.

I really don't know why they do it. But they all do it. They don't seem to be able to resist the temptation to puff themselves up even when it's pretty certain they'll be found out. There's always a compulsion to gild the lilly.

But Clinton has lost a lot of the advantage that the Wright affair gave her and aren't these guys (the Clintons) supposed to be the past masters at political campaigning?

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

You might say that, but all of the post election research and exit polling indicates that Ross Perot only prevented Clinton from getting over 50% of the vote, and that Clinton would have won by comfortable margins in both 1992 and 1996 without Ross Perot in the race.

I would pretty much have to agree the 1996 results would have stood as is. But the 8% margin would have probably been about 4%, not much of a landslide.

In 1992, the breakdown of RP voters was a huge Republican percentage. I think that could have made the difference in the outcome. The best would have been if Perot had not pulled out of the race, then jumped back in. He may have actually had a shot at winning. I believe he was neck in neck or leading in most polls at the time.

[ISiddiqui]

I think VV is correct that Perot pulled equally from both sides. I saw polls to suggest that potential Clinton voters voted for Perot in relatively equal numbers as Bush voters. It was mostly union members who weren't all that happy with Clinton's pro-NAFTA stance that flocked to Perot's protectionism.

[Ksyrup]

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

I agree, that is really some disappointing posturing to see.

[rkmsuf]

The View? That disqualifies him right there from being elected.

[Buccaneer]

Just like when he said, "typical white people", I agree he needs to shut up but inexperience is playing a role in trying to deal with something he had not had to face before.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Just like when he said, "typical white people", I agree he needs to shut up but inexperience is playing a role in trying to deal with something he had not had to face before.

Yep, and here's where experience would come in. He needs to stop talking NOW. Give his speech on race and just shut up... but everytime he feels has to explain himself, yikes.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

It also smacks of typical Dem defensiveness, which comes off as fake and never works.

When Wright came up, I felt that the typical (John Kerry) type Dem response would have been a half-hearted "I reject that and I actually like white people almost as much as John McCain does."

Instead, Obama said "Here's what I think. Here's why I think it. And here's why its good that I think that." He lost some votes that way, but most of those votes he was going to lose anyway. And it reminded people who liked him of why they liked him. And, if it ended up failing, it was because voters rejected Obama's actual choices--not because they rejected some insincere and yellow-bellied apology for who he was and what he believed.

This View thing totally turns that on its head. And, it is just stupid politics because it interjects something new into the Wright situation, which might give Wright new news cycle life. He should have just told them to watch his speech and denied them any new soundbite.

I fear that Obama is trying to chase those voters who say that they were thinking of voting for him until his response to the Wright thing. He should not chase them. He will never catch them. Regardless of what they say and what they may actually believe about themselves, they were never going to vote for Obama. They were just waiting for an excuse not to do it. They were "considering" Obama in the same way that I would consider Jeb Bush. It is a costless lie to tell yourself in March to make you feel more open to the other party than you are.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yep, and here's where experience would come in. He needs to stop talking NOW. Give his speech on race and just shut up... but everytime he feels has to explain himself, yikes.

His team of neophytes are going to kill him before he gets a chance to get elected, with the way they're failing to manage him.

I was playing tennis on the PS2 last night against the #1 in this match when I was ranked 90th or something and I was ahead early, then he came back and I finally won...but it reminded me of the Clinton/Obama race. Obama is the upstart and when you're coming into a match as an unknown quantity, your best best is to find early where you can win points and then hit on all cylinders to get up on your opponent early.

You want to beat them before they know what hit them or before they have a chance to respond.

Like it or not, the Clinton campaign has successful FORCED him to play in the mud with them and aren't allowing Obama's team to alter the conversation AT. ALL. His people need to be aware of this and find ways to his high minded rhetoric and prose that he's been so accused of flaunting and get people to swoon again, because he's becoming more and more ordinary by the day. Transforming himself from "Inspirational candidate" to "Typical Politician" is going to torpedo his campaign.

We all know that kids don't necessarily vote in November and so, banking on them isn't a sure thing. Other than black voters and oft-derided 'latte liberals' he doesn't really have a coalition that are used to playing nice together.

He better realize he needs to find some way to galvanize Americans into action. All of this sniping back and forth with Team Clinton is just wearing people down and will get them more and more polarized going forward...and no way it convinced independents to consider sampling the Kool-Aid.

But maybe he just wants to lose now, so he can make more money after it's over. I mean, it's far more lucrative to get Tonya Harding clubbed by the Clinton team than to just lose to John McCain because then "hope loses" and it's not quite as compelling until another decade. And being Governor of Illinois won't really substitute for it and I really just doubt Michelle is going to let him run again in four years...or eight.

This is his shot. Dems don't let losers come back, so...I think his people probably have to realize that this is their watershed moment and they'd be getter straight the horse for the stretch run.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But it's not unique to Clinton. Obama wasn't a professor, he was a mere lecturer.

Not to nitpick, but that's one of those base untruths that is just thrown out there by the other side to see if it sticks. According to the University of Chicago, Obama was a professor.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

not to take away from your overall point, which is that puffery is an essential part of politics.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think Obama needs to shut up now. His latest attempt to explain this away on The View, where he says he would have left the church had Wright not retired (last year), is ridiculous in two respects - first, it completely ignores the fact that the issue for many people is why he wouldn't leave the church 15-20 years ago, not when it mattered to his campaign - that's too late and feeds the idea that he's really no different than any other politician; and second, it's way too close to the Bill Clinton "I smoked pot but didn't inhale" excuse that defined him. Again, for a guy whose whole campaign is built on not being "politics as usual," guess what he's doing?

I very much agree with your interpretation of this explanation. In fact I'm surprised that he believed he could answer the criticisms with this. His speech was excellent - but in another context. It too failed to answer the question "Why the hell did you listen to this crap for 20 years?"

But I disagree with your opening comment - for me he still has to address the perception that he tolerates or even has some sympathy with Wright's views and remaining quiet, while perhaps better than half-assed answers like The View interview, will not have the matter go away - unless Clinton comes up with a howler even worse than her "ducking the bullets". And even then he will have McCain, or to be more exact McCain's supporters, to deal with as they throw away the kid gloves the Clinton campaign (in fear of a Democrat backlash) has worn so far. If he thinks he's having it rough at the moment he's got a surprise coming and his current behaviour feeds the perception that he wll not be very good under pressure.

This interview, which highlights the real problem as you indicate, suggests he hasn't yet realised what that problem is.

[CamEdwards]

Mac,

I agree with Ksyrup that Obama's best bet is to just shut up about it. He's given his "major speech", he's addressed the issue (badly) several times since then, and every time he keeps the story going.

Yes, this story will hurt Obama. But every time he opens his yap and tries to explain away his decisions, it only hurts him more. Politically speaking, it's probably best to just take your lumps and move on, especially since Obama's position doesn't seem to be changing. He just keeps coming up with new excuses to justify his behavior.

[JPhillips]

Some interesting comments on Obama and race by Condi. From the Washington Times:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national "birth defect" that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding.

"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."

As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."

"That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today," she said.




Race has become an issue in this year's presidential campaign, which prompted a much-discussed speech last week by Sen. Barack Obama, one of the two remaining contenders for the Democratic nomination.

Miss Rice declined to comment on the campaign, saying only that it was "important" that Mr. Obama "gave it for a whole host of reasons."

But she spoke forcefully on the subject, citing personal and family experience to illustrate "a paradox and contradiction in this country," which "we still haven't resolved."

On the one hand, she said, race in the U.S. "continues to have effects" on public discussions and "the deepest thoughts that people hold." On the other, "enormous progress" has been made, which allowed her to become the nation's chief diplomat.

"America doesn't have an easy time dealing with race," Miss Rice said, adding that members of her family have "endured terrible humiliations."

"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them — and that's our legacy," she said.

[Dutch]

"What I would like understood as a black American is that black Americans loved and had faith in this country even when this country didn't love and have faith in them — and that's our legacy," she said.

A pretty powerful legacy at that, I think.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A pretty powerful legacy at that, I think.

That is a great quote.

[Arles]

I would change this slightly:

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Just like when he said, "typical white people", I agree he needs to shut up but inexperience with a critical media is playing a role in trying to deal with something he had not had to face before.

Before 2008, Obama had pretty much a 4-5 year honeymoon with the national media. Nearly every story was positive and he could simply let the media fight his battles. IMO, people that haven't been forced to deal with strong criticism tend to struggle when put on a stage with it. Obama probably felt that it would all go away after his initial speech (with help from the media), but when it didn't he started going "on his own" to deal with it - something he doesn't have the experience to do.

For his own benefit, it's good that he takes some lumps now as most will be forgotten by the fall election. It's better to learn how to handle criticism now (even some that isn't legit), than suddenly get put in a trial by fire with it in September for the first time.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Mac,

I agree with Ksyrup that Obama's best bet is to just shut up about it. He's given his "major speech", he's addressed the issue (badly) several times since then, and every time he keeps the story going.

Yes, this story will hurt Obama. But every time he opens his yap and tries to explain away his decisions, it only hurts him more. Politically speaking, it's probably best to just take your lumps and move on, especially since Obama's position doesn't seem to be changing. He just keeps coming up with new excuses to justify his behavior.

You guys may well be right on this because I don't know what he can say that would get him off the hook. But it isn't going to go away. Even if the Clinton Gang let up on this (which I doubt) the Republicans are not going to in a Presidential campaign. This is with Obama right the way to the White House and beyond if he makes it that far - and it may be the reason he doesn't.

[JPhillips]

So how far do we take things? Does the fact that Charlie Black, long time McCain friend and advisor, served on the host committee for Moon's coronation at the Dirksen Building matter? Can we really trust McCain when perhaps his closest advisor is in bed with a man who called for the destruction of America?

Why not?

[Noop]

Condi Rice gets some cool points from me for that statement.

[TroyF]

This continues to play out like I thought it would. The dem friends I have are getting more and more divided by the day. I see it in the national polls as well. The nastier the stories get (and by nasty I'm not saying untrue or unfounded), the worse this gets for the dems.

With Hillary's high negative numbers, she was going to have a tough time getting elected to begin with. Now? I can't see it. She's not even going to be the dem nominee. (she's the only one who can't see this at this point)

now Obama is making idiotic quotes all over the place and showing his inexperience. He's going to be the nominee, but I don't see how he wins in November.

The scary thing for the dems? The fun is just beginning. Wait til you see how brutal this is going to get one week ahead of PA.

[Greyroofoo]

So apparently Mike Gravel quit the undemocratic party and is gunning for running under the Libertarian banner.

[JPhillips]

That's after he flirted with the Green Party. He's just an egotistical guy looking to find exposure.

[IMetTrentGreen]

He's going to be the nominee, but I don't see how he wins in November.

You could replace Dem with PS3 and you'd be right back to 6 months ago, as incorrect as ever.

Either democrat would roll McCain. Eventually the media giant will turn it's attention to McCain, and they will damage him. There is a lot for them to chew on out there.

He's completely flipped from everything he said as a "maverick" in 2000-2001. He's sold out to the neo-cons to get elected and he's left an enormous trail of contradictions in his wake. He's admitted to not knowing a thing about the economy, which will easily be the #1 factor in the election, just like it is ever 4 years.

For instance, this just came out today:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...iv-prevention/

His plan to curb AIDS in Africa is abstinence, he doesn't know if condoms stop the spread of disease, and he forgot what they told him to say. There are mountains of stories like this that the mainstream media hasn't focused on yet.

If he wins, it will be because someone found out Obama really is a muslim, or something. Obama's numbers have already rebounded from the Wright thing. Clinton is the only one who can win it for McCain at this point. The longer she stays in, the shorter amount of time we have to shift the lumbering attention of the media to form it's narrative on McCain. That takes time, but as the Wright/Tuzla stories showed, it doesn't take long to damage a candidate.

I think Obama wins because the media narrative will shift. If it doesn't, which is possible, Obama will have a fight. But eventually, someone will do their homework and the anchors will stop using words like "maverick" and "straight talk."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

For instance, this just came out today:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...iv-prevention/

March 16, 2007 is today?

[Arles]

McCain is McCain, most know what they are getting (for better or worse). Age is a concern, as is his willingness to sell out the base in his party to look good. The problem for the democrats is that his biggest flaw to republicans (willingness to to work with dems) is a big draw for independents. it seems like most on the right have come to terms with this so I don't really see what's going to come out to knock him down. He's run for president multiple times (even as a front-runner) and most of his dirt has been aired out for a while. Some of his hawk talk might put people off and you could focus on his inconsistent statements. Still, seeing him go to a proactive approach to global warming and becoming more liberal on some social issues is hardly going to turn off democrats and independents looking to jump ship from someone else.

In the end, if most on the right hold their nose and vote for him (as I expect they will - for the judges issue alone), he should win.

[Buccaneer]

My view, Arles, is that McCain will not appoint the social con judges (as some here are fearful of) but that he will not appoint liberal judges. Sort of a cost avoidance issue. This makes it an issue but not in the way people think.

[JPhillips]

McCain's problems with conservatives don't mater in votes, but in money. In February he raised a paltry 11 million. He'll need to generate excitement with the base if he wants to raise money. He'll attract a lot of independent votes, but those folks generally don't donate.

He's also going to have problems with the FEC over the spending cap. In the end he won't be legally hampered as the FEC is non-functional right now, but the way he played fast and loose with campaign spending regulations will hurt him for a bit.

[Arles]

To switch topics a bit, I'm really at a loss to see why Dean, the dem party and parts of both campaigns are against the Breseden plan to have a "superdelegate conference" in June and figure this thing out then. I don't see anyway that either candidate will get the votes needed by the convention and atleast this way involves debate and an overall decision process in the open. I could easily see the winning candidate from this in June (prob Obama) using the next 3 months to reunite the party and get ready for the fall election.

This seems to be an infinitely better option than waiting until the delegates individually report in the convention and make a decision late in the summer.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Arles

To switch topics a bit, I'm really at a loss to see why Dean, the dem party and parts of both campaigns are against the Breseden plan to have a "superdelegate conference" in June and figure this thing out then. I don't see anyway that either candidate will get the votes needed by the convention and atleast this way involves debate and an overall decision process in the open. I could easily see the winning candidate from this in June (prob Obama) using the next 3 months to reunite the party and get ready for the fall election.

This seems to be an infinitely better option than waiting until the delegates individually report in the convention and make a decision late in the summer.

Dean has already said that by July 1st, the superdelegates will have decided.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/s...-deadline.aspx

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

My view, Arles, is that McCain will not appoint the social con judges (as some here are fearful of) but that he will not appoint liberal judges. Sort of a cost avoidance issue. This makes it an issue but not in the way people think.

We thought Bush wouldn't either. See how well that worked out. He will pander to them and he will appoint judges that are "highly qualified" and willing to be conservative soup de jour. That's fine, but...when court nominations boil down to who will be appointed to overturn Roe v. Wade or not, the whole apparatus is a little silly.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Dean has already said that by July 1st, the superdelegates will have decided.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/s...-deadline.aspx

The problem here is that they may be split and still not "officially" nominate a winner. By having them all together, you could give the winner enough delegates to be an official winner. Even if all the supers decide by July 1, they may not reach the magic number for one candidate - so I'm guessing the loser will hang on until the convention (while trying desperately to get a few to change votes).

[Young Drachma]

Last year, after this story ran about Obama not inviting Rev. Wright to give the invocation at his announcement for President. Rev. Wright wrote this letter in response last March:

March 11, 2007

Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run.

I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family? I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only." I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print? You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography." Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth. I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior.

Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,

Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

[Young Drachma]

Hillary's campaign isn't paying its bills. That's not news for political campaigns, especially losing ones. But...it does prove her campaign is having a devil of a time raising cash.

Netroots will come through in big ways for Obama were he to find a way to seal the deal on this and I think that's going to make the task facing McCain and the GOP base having an even more difficult time. He might convince the right wing he'll appoint their judges in return for big fundraising bucks, but...Obama has been breaking records left and right and even in the shadows of all of this stuff going on now, he's still awash with cash.

No way he takes public funding in the general, even though he said he would before.

[Toddzilla]

About 1/2 down the page, the author notes that Michael Bloomberg is introducing Obama in a high-profile speech.

hxxp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/825803.aspx

Is this serious? Could Obama run Bloomberg on his ticket?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hillary's campaign isn't paying its bills. That's not news for political campaigns, especially losing ones.

One of the interesting things that is happening now that so many more people are paying attention to the primary than before is that stuff that isn't news and happens all of the time is seen by some people as news.

You are right that it isn't newsworthy at all that a campaign, like any business, waits as long as possible to pay its bills--letting some of them get behind. That's just smart (and normal) operating procedure.

But some people are latching onto this story, trying to use it as evidence that Clinton does not understand money, or that she does not support small business. It is, of course, neither of these things.

It interests me to see campaigns having to positively spin actions that, in any other primary election, would not even be noticed--let alone need to be spun.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

About 1/2 down the page, the author notes that Michael Bloomberg is introducing Obama in a high-profile speech.

hxxp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/825803.aspx

Is this serious? Could Obama run Bloomberg on his ticket?

Very unlikely. Though a Jewish RINO might be an interesting idea, I doubt he'd do it. Bloomberg doesn't need to be Veep and it'd just make Obama easier to bump off by some crazy.

With all of the sore feelings that'll come together after this nomination process, they'll have to pick a white woman to assuage the idea that this is another "business as usual" election where "change wasn't allowed to happen" by rejection Hillary.

By getting a woman on board who doesn't infringe on Obama's "stature" or deflect attention too much -- maybe a red state woman Governor -- it'll make people sorta forget about Hillary and start to think ahead.

Without that addition, they're just going to be haunted by the ghosts o' Clinton.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

One of the interesting things that is happening now that so many more people are paying attention to the primary than before is that stuff that isn't news and happens all of the time is seen by some people as news.

You are right that it isn't newsworthy at all that a campaign, like any business, waits as long as possible to pay its bills--letting some of them get behind. That's just smart (and normal) operating procedure.

But some people are latching onto this story, trying to use it as evidence that Clinton does not understand money, or that she does not support small business. It is, of course, neither of these things.

It interests me to see campaigns having to positively spin actions that, in any other primary election, would not even be noticed--let alone need to be spun.

I think the media has a vested interest in 1) keeping the Rev. Wright story near the front page. If it bleeds it leads and 2) stoking the fires of the "Hillary Go Home" crusade, because it makes for good drama since they obviously know that she won't quit because people tell her to.

I think this entire primary season and election as a whole has been crafted by media partisans who are trying to tailor the news cycle, rather than report it. Not a shock, but...I think the sensationalism is far more accepted as fact now, than it used to be.

[Young Drachma]

[JPhillips]

This is really the relevant part of the article:

The New York senator’s presidential campaign ended February with $33 million in the bank, according to a report filed last week with the Federal Election Commission, but only $11 million of that can be spent on her battle with Obama.

The rest can be spent only in the general election, if she makes it that far, and must be returned if she doesn’t. If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February.

We'll see what her numbers look like for March, which should be a good month for her. She is, though, well behind in primary funds and that's going to have an effect. Here in IN Obama has already started a heavy media campaign and Clinton hasn't done anything. She's paying for her campaign's early habit of throwing money at everything.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think the media has a vested interest in 1) keeping the Rev. Wright story near the front page.

The press has actually gone fairly easy on the Obama/Wright affair. Here are some salient questions that haven't really been answered yet:

1. In early March you said your church was not “particularly controversial.” Later in the month, after video clips of Jeremiah Wright had been repeatedly played on television, you admitted that you had heard Wright make statements in church that qualified him as a “fierce critic” of U.S. domestic and foreign policy and that “could be considered controversial.” You also said you “strongly disagree[d]” with some of Wright’s political views. Can you tell us what you specifically heard Wright say that you considered fiercely critical of U.S. policy, controversial, and with which you strongly disagreed?

2. During the approximately 20 years you attended Trinity United Church of Christ, did you hear Wright make comments or read things published in the “Pastor’s Page” of the church bulletin that could be fairly deemed to be anti-American, anti-Semitic, and/or a “profoundly distorted view of this country” (to quote from your speech on race)?

3. When did you first become aware of the fact that in 1984 Reverend Wright traveled to Libya with Louis Farrakhan to visit Muammar Qadhafi? Similarly, when did you become aware of Wright's role in giving Farrakhan a lifetime-achievement award and that Wright referred to the Nation of Islam leader as a man of “integrity and honesty?” Did those things trouble you when you learned of them?

4. Did you ever, even once, have a conversation with Reverend Wright in which you expressed your concern about his rhetoric and worldview? If not, do you now wish you had? What ought to have triggered that conversation with Wright?

5. In the speech on race you delivered a couple of weeks ago, you said you could “no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community.” Does that mean you believe Wright is synonymous with the embodiment of the black community, that they are one in the same? Is it your view that to disown any person who is black means you would therefore disown the black community? If so, does that mean you would be unable to “disown” someone like Louis Farrakhan? Are there any grounds on which you would disown Wright? If so, wouldn’t that (by your own logic) mean that you would disown the whole of the black community?

6. On ABC’s The View you said “had the Reverend [Wright] not retired and had he not acknowledged what he had said had deeply offended people and [was] inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.” Had you done so, how would that be different from “disowning” Wright?

7. Can you cite a single public statement in which Reverend Wright acknowledges that what he said deeply offended people, and was both inappropriate and a mischaracterization of what you believe is the greatness of this country? To what evidence of Wright’s public contrition can you point?

8. When you/those on your campaign cancelled Reverend Wright’s delivery of the invocation when you formally announced your run for the presidency in February 2007, what were the grounds for the cancellation? What did you know about Wright then that moved you to cancel his appearance?

9. With which elements, if any, of black liberation theology — as represented by Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ — do you strongly disagree? Do you think any of the core tenets of black liberation theology are racist? Are they consistent with, or fundamentally at odds with, your expressed desire to end racial divisions in this country?

10. Is there anything Reverend Wright has said in your presence that you fear will be made public and that your campaign is working to keep from coming out?

11. You have complained that America has been presented with an incomplete picture of Reverend Wright. Would you therefore urge Wright and Trinity United to make public all the sermons of Wright, as well as things he has written in the church bulletin and elsewhere, so we can see the full body of his work? And will you let us know, to the best of your ability, the dates you attended church services during the last 20 years?

12. Since the Wright story broke there seems to have been a concerted effort to keep Reverend Wright from speaking to the press or in public. If he is the man you says he is — if the soundbites we have all seen are anomalous and the portrait of him is a caricature — then why not encourage him to do interviews in order to set the record straight?

13. Do you think it was surprising or out of character for Reverend Wright to reprint an oped by a leading Hamas figure, Mousa Abu Mazook, in the “Pastor’s Page” of Trinity United’s church bulletin?

14. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be anti-Semitic? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

15. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be anti-American? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

16. Do you consider Reverend Wright, within context and based on his public comments, to be racist? What more would he need to say to cross that threshold?

17. Whom do you consider to be a more admirable and impressive figure and whose public words do you more closely associate yourself with: Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. or Justice Clarence Thomas?

18. If the GOP candidate for president had a close, intimate relationship of almost two decades with a pastor whose church provided shelter to homeless people, provided day care and marriage counseling but who was himself a white supremacist, asked God to damn rather than bless America, said that the United States got what was coming to it on 9/11, advocated conspiracy theories about genocidal policies being promoted by the American government, said that Israel is a “dirty word,” believed it was a terrorist state and promoted the views of Hamas leaders, would that trouble you? And would you accept the word of the GOP candidate if he insisted that he was not sitting in the pews when those things were said and therefore claimed he ought not be tarnished by the association?

19. Have you ever heard things contemporaneously said by Reverend Wright that you considered as offensive, or more offensive, than what Don Imus said about the Rutgers women’s basketball team (something you considered to be a firing offense at the time)?

20. In looking back on this whole matter, do you think you have made any significant errors in judgment regarding your relationship with Reverend Wright? To what degree are you responsible for this controversy? And have you been completely forthcoming in telling Americans about what you heard from Wright and when you heard it?

21. When Reverend Wright told the New York Times last year that if you got past the primaries he thought you might have well have to publicly distance yourself from him — and your reaction was that you agreed — what did both of you know at the time?

22. Will you answer the questions posed above? If so, when? And if not, why?

National Review Online Article - Wright Questions

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

22. Will you answer the questions posed above? If so, when? And if not, why?

National Review Online Article - Wright Questions

I don't even think that the media is the main reason that this story continues to progress. Obama's continuing need to keep adressing the situation and provide statements that seem to conflict with previous statements are the main reason that this story continues. The media has to ask further questions when the contradictory comments appear. Obama's mistake was when he decided to be defensive and provide half-truth statements about the situation rather than immediately distance himself from the situation and then shut up.