The Candidates
Obama on Wright:
I know that one thing that [Wright] said was true, was that he wasn’t - you know, he was never my, quote-unquote, “spiritual adviser.”
He was never my “spiritual mentor.” He was - he was my pastor. And so to some extent, how, you know, the - the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, wasn’t accurate.
How the press characterized the relationship??? Gee, it’s not like Rev. Wright was a member of Obama’s Spiritual Advisory Committee or anything.
The fact is that it is simply too late for Obama for disavow Wright at this point when he has had ample opportunity to do so. Wright’s intention of capitalizing on his new found notoriety for the remainder of the campaign is not a reason that voters will accept for Obama throwing him under the bus now.
I mean really… How much more offensive where his comments at the National Press Club from the numerous other outrageous statements he has made from the pulpit over the past 20 years in which Obama was a member of his church?
Sen. Obama had his chance to demonstrate that he truly is a new kind of Democrat and disavow Rev. Wright’s hateful statements. The fact that he did not until he absolutely had to tells us all we need to know about the kind of politician he really is.
P.S.: As a parting remark to Sen. Obama, good luck with that aggressive Evangelical outreach you were planning on when your pastor and spiritual advisor makes comparisons such as these:
Remember, they had to send Jesus to a court presided over by the enemy, a provisional governor appointed by their enemies, ran the civic and the political affairs of their capitol. He had him backing him up an occupying army with superior soldiers. They were commandos trained in urban combat, and trained to kill on command. Remember, it was soldiers of the 3rd Marine Regiment of Rome who had fun with Jesus, who was mistreated as a prisoner of war, an enemy of the occupying army stationed in Jerusalem, to ensure the mopping up action of Operation Israeli Freedom.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Ok, any anti-Mitt Romney supporters are not allowed to agree with Kavon here. Mitt was widely castigated for being disloyal, disloyal to his state of MA, disloyal to the likes of Senator Criag (who he “threw under a bus” after toilet-gate).
Obama here, it could be argued, has been loyal to Wright, by refusing to just abandon him when the going got tough. Finally it reached the point of no return and he disowned him.
Those who like politicians dropping associations at the drop of a hat (like Mitt Romney) can hammer Obama on this one. Those who praise loyalty (e.g. Bush with Cheney/Rumsfeld et al) shouldn’t.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I’m with Ace here. I get physically angry just thinking about this Obama charade. This is like Mike Huckabee pulling his “I was gonna run this negative ad, where I call Mitt Romney a phony, but I can’t because I’m simply too honorable” for about 100 straight days. That’s the level of suspension of disbelief that’s needed to buy the load of malarkey Obama is selling. He went to Trinity because he needed a political base. Obama stayed there, knowing exactly what sort of man Jeremiah Wright was, because he’s far enough to the left to find such idiocy pretty much par for the course, and because he didn’t want to lose that political base. And now he’s disavowing him because Wright’s a liability who’s exposing Obama’s cowardice and absolutely naked ambition. Period. But, I’m happy to run with the “Obama couldn’t figure out what sort of guy Jeremiah Wright was after 20 years, and now he wants to sit down to tea with the world’s worst dictators, without pre-conditions, and have a few “getting to know you” sessions? Let’s hope good ole’ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t lob a nuke our way while Barry’s trying to puzzle him out” line.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
JayPe,
Nonsense. The question isn’t “why didn’t you disown Wright before this?” it’s “what the heck were you doing with Wright in the first place?” I think the two are continually confused because lots of folks, even conservatives who are inclined to hate Obama, can’t face up to the fact that this issue probably will be, in the long run, a campaign ender for Barack. This is understandable because there’s this mentality that, when an issue arises, the relevant party must “address” it. Thus, all media angles on the story focus on Barry’s response. But, this approach gets it wrong entirely.
Because the first question ought to be “is this issue addressable?” John McCain gets caught “flip-flopping” on a Germany-like occupation of Iraq, and the media, having decided that the issue is addressable, attempts to get McCain to address it. But, Eliot Spitzer gets caught using the services of prostitutes, and no one asks Spitz “hey, can you clear this business up for us so that we can, you know, understand it”. Because it’s understood from the get-go that the issue isn’t truly addressable. The questions are in the “what in the world was he thinking?” vein. The Wright and Ayers difficulties are far closer to the latter type of issue, though I think the media (and other elite pundits) have trouble grasping this for at least two reasons.
First, it seems to be, at least tangentially, related to race. While America still has deep elements of racism, there’s also a vibrant current of political correctness in the elite corridors of power. Media and pundits, liberals and conservatives, whites and hispanics, find themselves deeply uncomfortable criticizing blacks when such criticisms could, in some alternative universe, smack of racism.
And there’s this relativistic culture that says, “well, geez, this is just how black culture is. It’s a unique aspect of their heritage, a heritage we bequeathed to them through the sin of slavery and segregation. Let’s not speak up too loudly”. So I think the media initially jumped to the “of course this is addressable” conclusion, because they’re preternaturally predisposed to avoid these sorts of confrontations. Secondly, the media is in love with Obama. They’ll do anything to let him atone for his sins, and no sin of the messiah is unforgivable.
This is all very good for us, because we’ve reached a point of no return. Obama simply isn’t going to get over the Wright issue, because it wasn’t something one “gets over” to begin with. The general public isn’t nearly so riddled with the political correctness of the elite, and they’re going to vote against Obama no matter how many times Chris Matthews gets thrills up his leg, or Andrew Sullivan declares the Wright and Ayers “distractions” settled. The entire elite apparatus that is propping this guy up will just wake up one day, probably in October, and realize that Barack’s going to recreate 1972. And there won’t be a darn thing they can do about it. Barack Obama’s campaign is going to die a very hard, but very slow death. Here’s to hoping the media doesn’t get a clue in time to save Hillary.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
What this does show is that the Democrats had a field of:
Biden, Dodd, Richardson
Edwards, Clinton, Obama.
They took the three most experienced candidates, and threw them out immediately. Then they threw out the one with previous national campaign experience (who also had the crucial southern accent).
So that left them with the two most inexperienced candidates, one who had no vetting but speaking skills as good as Edwards, and one who has been vetted and found wanting big time (along with hubby-bubba). Not smart.
Meanwhile, the Republicans eliminated the dross and voted for the only guy with military experience, and the only one who wouldn’t have alienated vast swathes of hispanic immigrants. (although he’s not great on the economy).
The campaign could have gone worse for the GOP…
April 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
But when (Reverend Wright) states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.
Q: Had you heard the reports about the AIDS comment?
SEN. OBAMA: I had not. I had not seen the transcript. What I had heard was that he had given a performance. And I thought at the time that it would be sufficient simply to reiterate what I had said in Philadelphia. Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just a — it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that — that — that contradicts who I am and what I stand for. And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I’m about knows that — that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the — the commonality in all people.
And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has — has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.
Uh, Rip van Obama the Oblivious and Vacuous Vessel of Hope…need I remind you that your pastor traveled with Farrakhan to meet with Qaddafi in Libya? You, yourself, not only participated in, but even helped organize Farrakhan’s Million Man March. And just this past year, the church to which you and your family still belong gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award for his positive influence on the black community, saying that he “truly epitomizes greatness.”
April 30th, 2008 at 2:00 am
This is where Limbaugh, Fox and the blogosphere are going to come in handy. They’re not going to let Obama off the hook so easily. And Obama doesn’t deserve to be let off the hook. Just because MSNBC says that Barack suffered enough over this and that somehow Barack is courageous for making another speech when his back is against the wall doesn’t mean that the American people should or will agree with that elite liberal assessment.
I think Matt is right. This isn’t going away. MSNBC and the rest of the media that is so busy choking on Barack’s uhh…lies… just don’t realize it yet.