The Wright thing isn’t going away

At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. Apparently, Wright’s latest comments — Obama cited three in particular — were so shockingly “divisive and destructive” that he had to renounce the man, not just the words.

What were Obama’s three citations? Wright’s claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American “terrorism.”

But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright’s words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them — live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama’s Philadelphia pretense that this “endless loop” of sermon excerpts being shown on “television sets and YouTube” had been taken out of context.

Obama’s Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright’s remarks: “The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

That was then. On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright’s outrages. But hadn’t Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America’s history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama’s own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright’s racist rants.

…

This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a “new politics,” rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It’s hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be “contextualized” as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.

Turns out the Wright show was not that complex after all. Everyone understands it now. Even Obama.

read the whole thing

Right-wings complain about Wright controversy; Left doesn’t seem to care

I have been reading a bunch of op-eds, blogs, and articles from people on the right who are raising hell about Wright’s latest remarks and the unfair coverage toward Clinton. From Bill Kristol at The New York Times:

Obama understands his advantage with the media, as he perhaps inadvertently demonstrated over the weekend on “Fox News Sunday.” In the course of dismissing much pundit commentary for typically overreacting to events, good or bad, Obama explained, “Well, look, after you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about, why did you lose?”

Obama chose a nice word: “anguished.” You’re only anguished by an Obama defeat if you’re rooting for an Obama victory. Obama was tacitly acknowledging that much of the liberal media has been hoping he’d win. Now, they’re rooting for him to close the deal.

That’s fine. If I were on the left I might be rooting for that too. But this focus on Obama has resulted in a refusal to give Hillary her due. It’s startling how much of the commentary on the Pennsylvania results has had to do with Obama’s flaws and mistakes — rather than Hillary’s strengths and successes. Maybe in Pennsylvania, they were voting for Clinton, not simply against Obama.

Which leads to this question: Will the media this week give Obama a pass on refusing to debate Clinton before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries on May 6? Will he be chastised for his lame excuse? “We’ve had 21, and so what we’ve said is with two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure we’re talking to as many folks as possible on the ground, taking questions from voters,” Obama said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Will it be left to conservatives like the estimable blogger “Allahpundit” (at hotair.com) to (sarcastically) state the obvious? “What’s the most efficient way to communicate with voters? Surely not at a massively promoted, televised, highly watched debate. Much better to hold a few town halls and meet and greets.”

I agree that the media is still fawning over Obama rooting for him to bounce back and overtake Clinton. Oh the glee they’ll have when he trounces her in North Carolina.

Jeremiah Wright fails his tryout for Comic View

“Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality,” he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. “Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style,” he said. “They have a different way of learning.”

Black people clap like this.  White people clap like this. HAHAHAHAHA! You so crazy Jeremiah.

Clinton more electable than McCain

Post-Pennsylvania poll results show that people are seeing Clinton as a better Democratic candidate against McCain than Obama.

Clinton, who won the Pennsylvania primary last week, has gained ground this month in a hypothetical head-to-head match up with the GOP nominee-in-waiting; she now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Superdelegates, are you listening?

Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term”

The Wit and Wisdom of Barack and Michelle Obama has a great post up on how Barack has a record of publicly promising one thing and then going back on his promises. My favorite case-in-point:

Russert: When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama: Absolutely. I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

Russert: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

Obama: I will not.

At least Hillary was smart enough a) not to comment when she got asked about it and b) finish out her six-year term and let John Kerry have at it in 2004.

If it was winner-take-all, Clinton would have won by now

I hope the DNC sits up and takes notice that if they take a chapter out of the Republican book on delegates, as much as they are loath to do so, they can avoid the current mess that we have in the future.

Indeed, Bill Clinton was correct the other day when he observed that, if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, Hillary Clinton would be ahead. (By Politico’s count, her margin would be at least 125 delegates, and possibly much more given the stampede effect often seen in nominating contests.)

source

I’m afraid to donate money to Clinton’s campaign because I don’t want to jinx her. I want her to win Indiana so badly now. It would be a major hit to Obama’s campaign and his support from superdelegates. I hope he can’t close the deal in Indiana. Even more so, I hope Clinton can somehow narrow his lead in North Carolina. That would be awesome.

Another distraction

Q: Well, one of the things to which some Democrats point — the Clinton campaign has not said this publicly at least, but one certainly hears it in talking to supporters in more of a background way. Look at the racial polarization in the last several contests — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Mississippi — is that going to be a problem? Is race going to be a problem for Barack Obama in the general election?

Plouffe: We really don’t think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain’s camp already. And I think if you look at the Democratic voters who are voting for Senator Clinton in some of these states, when you sort of look beneath it and you project how this is going to happen, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He is going to be articulating policies and ideas that they believe in. They won’t agree with John McCain on issues like the economy and health care. And so I think that we are going to get the vast, vast majority of Democratic voters.

source

Plouffe is David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager. I thought race wasn’t part of this campaign? Also, is he implying that racists only vote republican?

Would McCain or anyone on his staff get away with the following statement?

I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in Obama’s camp already.

I think not and they shouldn’t. Neither statement is acceptable. It’s a bullcrap double standard and Obama should be called on it.

I wonder if this will get any traction in the press. Ben Smith at The Politico has covered it and views it pretty much like I did (take a look at the post’s title).

Change you can’t believe in

Healthcare:

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

It is still seven months before Election Day, but already senior Democrats are maneuvering to lower public expectations on the key policy issue.

…

For some senators, the promises made by Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) outside of Washington may not match the political reality on Capitol Hill.
“We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates’ healthcare plans. “What they are doing is … laying out their ambitions.”

Taxes:

Senator John McCain’s tax talk is particularly divorced from reality.

…
In effect, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are saying that they can pay for their promises mainly by raising taxes on the top 3 percent of taxpayers. That’s neither politically nor economically plausible.

Perhaps the candidates are afraid the American people can’t handle the truth about what it would take to meet the nation’s economic challenges. Or perhaps they are underestimating those challenges.

Iraq:

Today, Barack Obama’s campaign is largely based around a promise to “end the war” in Iraq by withdrawing troops within 16 months.

But some Washington foreign policy mandarins insist this isn’t possible–that a total U.S. withdrawal isn’t achievable and Obama knows it. That Obama, like Nixon, in fact has a secret plan not to end the war. “The classic storyline is that everyone wants to get out, but we’re not going to get out, and everyone’s going to be disappointed,” says Derek Chollet, a former foreign policy adviser to John Edwards. Or, at least, that Obama’s speeches overstate the feasibility of a near-term Iraq exit. “Close to a pipe dream,” says the Council on Foreign Relations’ Leslie Gelb. “I regard that as campaign rhetoric rather than serious policy.” “Wildly unrealistic campaign rhetoric,” scoffs The Washington Post editorial page.

…

The truth is Obama has no secret plan for Iraq. Interviews with nearly two dozen foreign policy and military experts, as well as Obama’s campaign advisers, and a close review of Obama’s own statements on Iraq, suggest something more nuanced. What he is offering is a basic vision of withdrawal with muddy particulars, one his advisers are still formulating and one that, if he is elected, is destined to meet an even muddier reality on the ground. Obama has set a clear direction for U.S. policy in Iraq: He wants us out of Iraq; but he’s not willing to do it at any cost–even if it means dashing the hopes of some of his more fervent and naïve supporters. And, when it comes to Iraq, whatever the merits of Obama’s withdrawal plan may be, “Yes, We Can” might ultimately yield to “No, we can’t.”

The Iraq link is a very good read but it is lengthy.

So to sum it up, all three are full of crap and Obama is really full of it when it comes to Iraq.

Dammit Barack. Stop making me agree with Hillary and her campaign.

So let me get this straight.

On the one hand, it’s perfectly decent for Obama to argue that only he has the virtue to bring change to Washington and that Clinton lacks the character and the commitment to do so. On the other hand, we are somehow hitting below the belt when we say that Clinton is the candidate best able to withstand the pressures of the presidency and do what’s right for the American people, while leaving the decisions about Obama’s preparedness to the voters.

Who made up those rules? And who would ever think they are fair?

source - written by Clinton’s new chief strategist, Geoff Garin

I even noticed this. Obama and his campaign attack Clinton at every opportunity on issues of character but expect Clinton to only debate policy.

Wright is out of bounds. Rezko is out of bounds. Ayers and Dohrn are out of bounds. The flag pin question is a no-no. Bittergate is a no-no. Everything that’s bad for Obama is a distraction.

Maya Angelou’s endorsement: Why haven’t I heard about this?

Maya Angelou endorsed Hillary Clinton on Thursday. Why hasn’t the media picked up on this? Oh, right–she’s not the media darling. Here’s an excerpt from her letter stating her endorsement:

I am inspired by her courage and her honesty.  She is a reliable and trustworthy person.  She is someone I not only admire but one for whom I have profound affection.

Hillary does not waver in standing up for those who need a champion.  She has always been a passionate protector of families.

It may be easy to view Hillary Clinton through the narrow lens of those who would write her off or grind her down.  Hillary sees us as we are, black and brown and white and yellow and pink and relishes our differences knowing that fundamentally we are all more alike than we are unalike.  She is able to look through complexion and see community.

She has endured great scrutiny, and still she dares greatly.  Hillary Clinton will not give up on you, and all she asks is that you do not give up on her.  She is a long-distance runner.  I am honored to say I am with her for the long run.

I am supporting Hillary Clinton because I know that she will make the most positive difference in people’s lives and she will help our country become what it can be.  Whether you are her supporter, leaning towards her, undecided, or supporting someone else, I believe Hillary Clinton will represent you – she will be a president for all Americans.

Hmm… “She is able to look through complexion and see community”? “She will be a president for all Americans”? Are these not-so-subtle digs at Obama playing the race card now and then and his schtick of being a “unifier”?

I need to run out and buy some Maya Angelou books.