Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 03/19/2008

What did he hear--and when did he hear it?

By Michael Dobbs


With Rev. Jeremiah Wright, March 2005.

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity."
--Barack Obama posting on Huffington Post, March 14, 2008.

In the speech on race that he delivered in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Barack Obama effectively conceded that he had been less than fully candid in his earlier remarks about Jeremiah Wright. He was quoted last year as saying that he did not think that his church was "particularly controversial." In Tuesday's speech, he acknowledged that he had sat in church while Wright made "remarks that could be considered controversial."

Some commentators have sought to further challenge Obama's veracity by citing a news report claiming that he attended a service at Trinity United Church of Christ on July 22, 2007 at which Wright made some incendiary remarks about the "United States of White America." According to the NewsMax reporter, Obama "nodded in agreement" as the preacher blamed the woes of the world on "white arrogance."

The NewsMax account has been challenged by the Obama campaign, which issued a statement denying that the senator attended church services on the day in question. Let's try to get to the bottom of this dispute.

The Facts

The original NewsMax story originally appeared on August 9 last year. The post was written by a freelance reporter, Jim Davis, and has reverberated around the media in recent days. It was picked up by NewsMax Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler (a former Washington Post reporter) on March 16 and cited by New York Times op-ed columnist William Kristol as evidence that Obama had failed to tell the truth about his relationship with Wright.

So was Obama in church on July 22 last year or was he not?

The Obama campaign has produced documentary evidence to show that the candidate flew out of Chicago's Midway airport at 8.50 a.m. that Sunday on a charter flight bound for Miami, Florida, where he addressed a Hispanic convention. The campaign, however, declines to make available Obama's full schedule for July 22. The Post's Presidential Tracker for that day shows another unspecified event in Chicago, but provides no further details.

Both Davis and Kessler argue that Obama could have attended a 7.30 a.m. service at Trinity and still have had time to make the 20-minute drive (in light Sunday traffic) from the church to Midway.

There are some problems with Davis's account. He is not a professional journalist. He works full-time at an information technology company and freelances for NewsMax at the weekends and in the evenings. He told me that he destroyed his notes on the Wright sermon "after five or six months" because the story was no longer "active," and therefore has no documentary evidence of what took place in the church, other than the story he filed two weeks later. He said he attended five or six services at Trinity during the month of July 2002, and that Obama was present on two occasions.

"I am 98 to 99 per cent sure that this took place on July 22," he says, acknowledging that he can no longer be 100 per cent certain about the date.


The Pinocchio Test

Given the fact that NewsMax has no documentary evidence to support its version of events, it seems reasonable to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this occasion, until and unless new evidence emerges. "98 per cent sure" is not good enough. The Illinois senator deserves credit for resisting the political pressure to completely disown his former pastor, defying political conventions, and publicly describing their agreements and disagreements. On the other hand, it is clear from his Philadelphia speech that he was more aware of the potentially inflammatory nature of his Wright's sermons than he previously acknowledged.

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | March 19, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Barack Obama, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Iraq Truth-Telling, Part II
Next: McCain's Foreign Policy 'Gaffe'

Comments

Don't you have anything better to do?

In this particular country, unlike China, say, Wright and Ferraro enjoy the freedom to express whatever opinion they might have, do they not? I can't for the life of me understand how the candidate, Clinton or Obama, is somehow accountable for anything said by someone else.

Personally, I zone out on the sermons in my church. They could be saying anything and I wouldn't know it. Particularly at 7 in the morning.

Posted by: David | March 19, 2008 7:19 AM | Report abuse

There's no evidence to conclude that Obama or his campaign have told anything other than the truth on his church attendance on two particular occasions, yet he still gets TWO Pinocchios? Your sense of fairness and generosity overwhelms me.

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 19, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA STANDS BEHIND SPIRITAL ADVISOR WRIGHT!
"Wright is like an uncle you love and respect"
IT'S WAY TOO LATE OBAMA, NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR YOUR LIES AND EXCUSES OR A SPEECH SOMEONE WROTE OR STOLE FOR YOU! YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO BE A MEMBER FOR 20 YEARS, YOU KNOW FULL WELL WHAT THIS RACIST ANTI-AMERICAN PREACHES EACH WEEK, YOU CAN BUY THE DVDS ON THE WEBSITE, and THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW YOU'RE RASING YOUR YOUNG DAUGHTERS? YOU ARE MOST CERTINALLY NOT THE LEADER FOR THIS GREAT COUNTRY! No one says Obama can't attend any church he wants, or practice Muslim religion, he can be as racist as his "not proud of America" wife Michelle, or even the anti- American as Wright and his churches "man of the year award" Farrakhan! The problems he is running to be President for ALL people of the U.S. not just white American haters! He is not fit to be in public service! He should have disowned Wright & Farrakhan before this week or left that church years ago if he didn't agree with his anti-American, anti white preaching. He is teaching his daughters the same type of anti American racism by attending that church and continuing to support and follow his spiritual advisor Rev Wright! Obama can't persuade his way out of this one with that extremely lame speech!
IT'S TIME OBAMA GET OUT OF THE RACE!!! DROP OUT! WE DO NOT NEED OR WANT YOUR CHANGE BACK THE RACIAL DIVIDE OF THE 60'S...SHAME ON YOU OBAMA!


Posted by: dyck21005 | March 19, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

How about fact-checking the media for a change, as in whether any media running with the Wright story have provided the context, that this character assassination is based on a few minutes of 30-second sound bites derived from years of sermons, hundreds of hours, hundreds of thousands of seconds, and this is all they could find? As in whether any media have devoted any substantial time to informing their readers/viewers/listeners as to the institution of the black church in American and whether in fact the sermons in question are that far out of the black church mainstream?

Posted by: flarrfan | March 19, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

Harvard Law and he walks for 20 years with a racebaiter and white hater. Then he equates his own white grandmother with Wright and unveils his grandmother to be a bigot. Wow. No vote for him.

Posted by: George Arthur | March 19, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Do we really need a "fact checker" on whether he knew about his racist statements? He was his Pastor and close advisor for over 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpzHQ_PC1uI

Of course he knew what he stood for and that he had made hateful statements toward other races and this country. This is a very well known preacher. He has always been known as controversial. It's just that the media like the Post chose to not tell the story because they blantantly support Obama. Why do you think Obama uninvited his Pastor to his campaign kickoff in 2007?

The whole thing tells us a lot about someone we know very little about.
He has no credibility left. On Friday he said he had never heard him make such statements. Then yesterday he said he did. Why does the Post keep defending him? If this were one of the other candidates, they would be gone. The media is tainted:
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/09/Opinion/Media_tainted_by_anti.shtml

Posted by: joe | March 19, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

I love it when you set out to "check facts" knowing full well that you will find some reason to accuse the person under your filthy, encrusted microscope to be guilty. I herewith award you 7 pinnochios for dishonest reporting.

Posted by: 33rdSt | March 19, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The article insinuates Obama is lying. This assumption is based on Newsmax and Ronald Kessler? Kessler has been busy self-editing his bio page on Wikipedia to delete the connection between himself and the story that Obama was in church that Sunday. Fact checker guy needs to get the facts straight before he delegates his childlike Pinnochios. Better yet, go to work for Newsmax. Newsmaxs' credibility and fact checking standards are a perfect fit for this writer.

Posted by: Mark | March 19, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

This is not quite so broadly biased as it would be if Penn or Wolfson had drafted it. In that way it is more insidious. Setting a straight denial from Obama, who has been exceedingly candid about his shortcomings, against the admittedly shaky recollection of a "non-professional" journalist, you choose to believe the reporter, whose interest in a more provocative version is patent. This on the most incendiary issue in American society. Have you no shame, sir?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

This is a disgraceful "fact-check." There is nothing remotely dishonest about Obama's saying that his church was not "particularly controversial" and later acknowledging that there were "remarks that could be considered controversial."

First, those two statements aren't even contradictory. Second, there is no evidence that Obama knew last year about the particular statements he is now calling controversial; in fact, many of them hadn't been made yet. Third, Obama obviously didn't foresee the present controversy, and seems to have realized how controversial the remarks were based on the reaction to them. Changing one's views based on new information is not dishonesty.

Posted by: AF | March 19, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

David is right. Most of us zone out when the sermons last more than 5 minutes. I can only be held accountable for what I say. I cannot be held accountable for what others say, including my kids, or my husband or my friends.

Leave Obama alone and stop trying to find lies when there are none. Did none of you hear his remarks yesterday? Or were his remarks just over your heads?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

David is right. Most of us zone out when the sermons last more than 5 minutes. I can only be held accountable for what I say. I cannot be held accountable for what others say, including my kids, or my husband or my friends.

Leave Obama alone and stop trying to find lies when there are none. Did none of you hear his remarks yesterday? Or were his remarks just over your heads?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Why do you give credence to a hatchet job versus the word of the candidate? If Obama says he was catching a plane to Miami, then why believe a person with an axe to grind who is "98%" sure of his assertion?
Finally, is this even a "fact" worth checking? I was more than satisfied by Obama's speech calling for racial unity and understanding - I was inspired.

Posted by: Chuck | March 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Facts on who would win based on the most popular gauge of today- the Internet;

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain - a Web Comparison:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=76

Posted by: Dave | March 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama is an opportunist politician who speechified to deflect an embarrassing story which demonstrates his lack of character.

Posted by: Voter777 | March 19, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

It is hard for me to accept that many of the people who are denigrating Sen Obama are professed "Christians". They must be because they sound so holy. Did the Christian Catholics leave the church amid the terrible time when we were learning that many of their priests were molesting children in their churches? Did the conservative christians jump up and run out of the church when Jerry Falwell was preaching that 9/11 was due to America being home to homosexuals and "baby killers"? I think not. Leave Sen. Obama alone! He is a good man, dealing with this situation as best he can. We Americans are most good people, but we surely are judgmental and some of us are surely hypocritical!

Posted by: beccajo | March 19, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

It is hard for me to accept that many of the people who are denigrating Sen Obama are professed "Christians". They must be because they sound so holy. Did the Christian Catholics leave the church amid the terrible time when we were learning that many of their priests were molesting children in their churches? Did the conservative christians jump up and run out of the church when Jerry Falwell was preaching that 9/11 was due to America being home to homosexuals and "baby killers"? I think not. Leave Sen. Obama alone! He is a good man, dealing with this situation as best he can. We Americans are mostly good people but some are surely judgmental and some of us are surely hypocritical!

Posted by: beccajo | March 19, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama was a very close associate of a race baiting anti American bigot for 20 years and he didn't know about his beliefs?

Give me a break. Obama is obviously lying.
He either believes in the ideas of Wright or ignored them for political advantage.

Posted by: bnichols | March 19, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I forgot...one more thing I meant to say:
dyck2l005:
Get a grip! ! you are raving and ranting.
Take a break...try to calm down and be rational or you might implode.

Posted by: beccajo | March 19, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

In the tradition of skilled terrorist spokesmen Obama dances, prances, romances ALL around the subject, i.e. the venom that spews from, and, into, the pews. My lying eyes SAW the opprobrium by the hysterical mob of "worshipers". They are, truly, devil worshipers. This does NOT call for dialogue: the one thing one doesn't do when confronted by a cancer is dialogue. No-No-No, not DIAlogue, but, CRYOlogue, as in cryogenic: that where you quick-freeze the thing at 300 degrees below zero. Freeze them, literally, and, physically, in their track; replete with their obscene gesticulations and body postures. They'll damn America no more. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Ren Traggo | March 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Ren traggo-you do realize you sound like a crazy person, right? Just checking.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | March 19, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Ren Traggo-you do realize you sound like a crazy person, right? Just checking.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | March 19, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

The Fact Checker should take a lesson in logic. There is nothing contradictary in Senator Obama saying that he does not see his church as particularly controversial while he can find remarks made the Reverend Wright that could be considered controversial.

I do not see my church as controversial, but have not agreed with all statements by my minister. I did not see my college as controversial, but I had professors who taught lessons that could be considered controversial.

And lets be honest, no one here (especially the author of this column) knows anything about the sermons of Reverend Wright, save for the few minutes that have been shown over and over. So he has no way of judging the situation.

The Fact Checker was wrong in this column.

Posted by: RJR | March 19, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Very good, Fact Checker, the more information that comes out revealing Barack Obama's disingenuousness with the public, his opportunistic way of dealing with the public, the better to judge him by, because one thing we know already: the deceptive, hidden personality known as Barack Obama, DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT HE IS REALLY LIKE, BECAUSE IF YOU DID, YOU'D NEVER VOTE FOR SUCH A PERSONALITY TO BE YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT-AND I CERTAINLY DON'T PLAN TO-THIS DEMOCRAT WILL FORCE THE HAND TO VOTE REPUBLICAN-A CLEAR VOTE AGAINST OBAMA-THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE.

Posted by: Spring Rain | March 19, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

In his speech, he says that he has heard controversial statements from the pew. He did not say that he heard THESE controversial statements from the pew.

Given that there are only a few days of statements chronicles in the Jeremiah Wright clips being played, that is not a stretch to believe.

Posted by: John Bacon | March 19, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

no country gives people the freedom like America. Mr Obama, you attend that Church for 20+ years and you do not know what your pastor are teaching every day/week? You are graduated from Law School? Please do not lie anymore. God will forgive you.

Posted by: joseph | March 19, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama was definitely in Chicago on the Sunday preceding July 22 (July 15, 2007) and he spoke at the Vernon Park Church of God that morning. He arrived there in a motorcade. Interestingly, Vernon Park Church of God is less than four miles from Trinity United (Obama's church--also on Chicago's South side). Mapquest estimates the driving time from Obama's church to Vernon Park Church of God as nine minutes. Did Wright deliver any racist remarks in a sermon on July 15th, 2007? If so, what is the likelihood that Obama attended Trinity Church on that day (either before or after his appearance at Vernon Park Church of God)??

Posted by: Facts | March 19, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Ren traggo - you're joking, right?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I don't think it makes any difference if Obama heard Rev. Wright's speeches when he was sitting in church or when he was sitting around a coffee table with him. The fact is - he did know exactly what Rev. Wright was preaching! Did he lie about what he knew? Yes he did! Has he lied about other things - yes he has - NAFTA, Rezko! I think the point is - he lies - says anything to get elected. Which is ironic when you hear his team blast Senator Clinton for doing the same thing! Hypocritical if you ask me!

Posted by: hipelayne | March 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Simply, Rev. Wright was not merely a Sunday preacher to Obama. Wright was "like an uncle" to Obama, married Obama and Michelle, baptized their two kids - and, most importantly, was Obama's close friend, supporter and mentor. Even if Obama didn't attend church and actually hear the specific sermon being circulated, certainly he heard the same vitriolic and hateful remarks of "God Damn America" Wright has been spewing for over 20 years. I was an Obama supporter - now I will vote for Hillary. Ferraro's statement (after which she promptly resigned) pales in comparison to Wright's words and beliefs. Also, Ferraro has never been Hillary's mentor or spiritual advisor. This is truly disappointing.

Posted by: Kate Thomas | March 19, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Simply, Rev. Wright was not merely a Sunday preacher to Obama. Wright was "like an uncle" to Obama, married Obama and Michelle, baptized their two kids - and, most importantly, was Obama's close friend, supporter and mentor. Even if Obama didn't attend church and actually hear the specific sermon being circulated, certainly he heard the same vitriolic and hateful remarks of "God Damn America" Wright has been spewing for over 20 years. I was an Obama supporter - now I will vote for Hillary. Ferraro's statement (after which she promptly resigned) pales in comparison to Wright's words and beliefs. Also, Ferraro has never been Hillary's mentor or spiritual advisor. This is truly disappointing.

Posted by: Kate Thomas | March 19, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

As the bible says, let him who is without blame cast the first stone. As a christian and an African American, there is no justifying what Pastor Wright said neither would I go to such a church though I live in Chicago.. we're to love ALL men like Christ did. But there are no perfect people, I guess people prefer political expediency like throwing the man under the bus rather than standing by him even though he was wrong. I guess we're too superficial for complex issues of race. I guess those who think McCain or Hilary are perfect people have no clue what real life is.. We did get 8yrs of Bush 'the christian' waging an unjustified war and making things worse at home. Maybe that's ALL people really need.

Posted by: Anu | March 19, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Someone should take a Poll in Europe and South America on what people think of Reverend Wright's comments. The results could probably shock most Americans, since I'm sure most people outside the US agree with most of the things he says, including the most controversial comments. The Conservative side of the nation would surely say that they are not Americans, and so they could not care less what they think, in the same way that they say that if Black people are unhappy, they should go back to Africa. But for a lot of Americans, it would help them confront a hard reality: most of what Reverend Wright said is actually correct.

Of course American foreign policy was at the root of 9/11, of course the country is controlled by rich white people, of course Hillary has never been treated as a second-class citizen, of course American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one-sided. These are the truths that America needs to hear, the truths that are not considered one bit controversial in Europe, but the truths that the US has refused stubbornly to acknowledge. Sooner or later America will need to drop its self-righteousness, and take a hard look on itself. When this happens, the man that is being demonized now will actually be considered a trailblazer. For this simple fact, Reverend Wright has my respect and my admiration.

Posted by: Charles | March 19, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Luckily (for us at least), Europeans and South Americans don't get to vote for President of the United States . . .

Posted by: JakeD | March 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

You are all Nuts.
This certainly isn't something anyone should base a decision as important as their vote for President.
All your own extreme prejudices are coming forward and frankly, it's ugly.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

A year ago when this was a non issue a reporter made up a story. Did he have a crystal ball? Rev Wright discussions and his rantings have been posted for at least a year. I have never attended the church, but I knew of his rantings. Why was he asked to not speak at the last minute?
The only good that came out of this discussion is the fact Obama can no longer scream racism after time some one distiguishes the color of his skin. He should be proud he is black and not making it an issue. He is an American and he should be proud of it. No American should continue to sit in a church for 20 years with those anti-American racist statements.

Posted by: pam | March 19, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

A year ago when this was a non issue a reporter made up a story. Did he have a crystal ball? Rev Wright discussions and his rantings have been posted for at least a year. I have never attended the church, but I knew of his rantings. Why was he asked to not speak at the last minute?
The only good that came out of this discussion is the fact Obama can no longer scream racism after time some one distiguishes the color of his skin. He should be proud he is black and not making it an issue. He is an American and he should be proud of it. No American should continue to sit in a church for 20 years with those anti-American racist statements.

Posted by: pam | March 19, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Kate,

I would never hold you accountable for things I say. How can you hold Obama accountable for the things Wright says? I don't understand how you can vote for Clinton. SHe has NO judgement, no instinct except what the polls and the pollsters say to her. When faced with any decision - she has shown time and again that she will not use careful considered reasoning and moral backbone to come to decisions. This is not the way forward. Obama is the way forward.

Don't ask of him that which you cannot yourself deliver.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Kate,

I would never hold you accountable for things I say. How can you hold Obama accountable for the things Wright says? I don't understand how you can vote for Clinton. SHe has NO judgement, no instinct except what the polls and the pollsters say to her. When faced with any decision - she has shown time and again that she will not use careful considered reasoning and moral backbone to come to decisions. This is not the way forward. Obama is the way forward.

Don't ask of him that which you cannot yourself deliver.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Using the logic posted by some on this thread..one can conclude that all white people are racists,because they all know someone that holds strong biased views towards people of color and wouldn't do anything about it.

Sound ridiculous.. because it is..

These tactics are a distraction from the fact that Sen. Obama is qualified to be president and the only way to stop, I should say slow his mometum is to diminish his character.

Posted by: Cynic | March 19, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Funny Clinton people, when they calm down long enough to get off the racist Caps Lock screeds, they bother to say, "I was an Obama supporter, but now I am voting for Clinton."

Clinton people, at least you can still make us laugh.

Oh and how about Clinton crediting McCain with being ready to lead the war effort?

While over there posing on the eastern front yesterday, he credited Iran for its support for sunni terrorism. Great judgement Hillary.

Commander in Chief: Hillary Clinton. I can't stop laughing. You couldn't lead the way out of a paper bag.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

For all the Hillary-supporters (a.k.a. Obama-haters like KATE THOMAS, let's chill out for a second and use some reasoning here. First let's deal with the FACT-CHECKER. The FACT-CHECKER here is a little off base. The free-agent reporter for NEWSMAX doesn't even offer proof that Obama was in church on July 22nd. Secondly, church services, especially black church services, usually lasts for 1.5 to 2 hours. This would mean if church started at 7:30am in the morning, then Obama would have left church at 9:00am to 9:30am, and consequently missed his flight.

Also bare in mind that pastor sermons don't start once the church doors open at 7:30am. There is at least 15 to 30 minutes worth of other church business (prayers, announcements, singing and etc) that gets handled initially before a churches pastor gives a sermon.

Unfortunately there are too many non-church goers trying to comment on events and issues that happen around Sunday morning. Bottom line, judge Obama, the person, based on his words and deeds, not someone elses.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 19, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama speaks with forked tongue and is totally unelectable in the general election. The Democratic Party needs to wake up people or it will be President McCain - another Bushie! He not only lied about being in church when this beast made these horrible damn America comments and the like but he also lied about the amount of money he had taken from Rezko - and more will come from that!

Posted by: jboggan | March 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

His speech encourages us to think about how we view each other on a personal level.
Does a teacher see a student or does a teacher see the color of a student first?
Does a doctor see a patient or does a doctor see the color of a person first?
Do I see my neighbor as a white neighbor or a black neighbor?
Despite what our histories are, to make progress, we have to go beyond the color of the skin and come together to solve common problems.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

jboggan, why worry about McCain as president? Hillary declared him just as ready as she is to be commander in chief.

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did not give a rat's a ss about sunni v shia, McCain doesn't (they are all the enemy, after all)
and neither does Hillary.

Or will she say to the country that in fact, John McCain's years of foreign policy "experience" do not make him qualified to be commander in chief? Can she say that? Or does she still believe McCain can lead us to victory in the oil war?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Can the Clinton crowd stop threatening to vote for McCain when Obama wins the primary? Otherwise, maybe you should stop saying that we better vote for Bill and Hillary or McCain will win.

You are only making fools of yourselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

This is an OUTRAGE on WHITE VOTERS! It was sickining to see the people CNN had talking up Obamas speech yesterday, Are they getting paid by Oprah? CNN needs to find a WHITE person that has not chosen to ignore the true Obama and let's hear that opinion! We frankly are sick of Caffertys rhetoric on Clinton daily (why does she threaten him so much?)And the Obama pushers like Borger, Malveaux and Roland Martin along with every black panelist representing blacks!

Posted by: rozz62 | March 19, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

You say: "There are some problems with Davis's account. He is not a professional journalist."
I ask: "When was the last time you heard a professional journalist? I can tell you it was when I was a kid. Ed Murrow. Eric Severide. Chet Huntley. David Brinkley. Charles Collingwood. Charles Kuralt. And just for good measure, Red Smith. So don't worry about Davis being a "professional journalist." They were a curious species ... sadly extinct.

Posted by: Mandelay | March 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

First Obama admitted yesterday that he had heard some of his Pastor's comments- something he previously denied. So he was caught in an outright like.

But despite this he gave a great speech. The bigger problem for Obama is that had he given it earlier it would have been seen as a moral speech and now it is merely political. That is a shame because what he said is important for people to hear.

Posted by: Peter | March 19, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

First Obama admitted yesterday that he had heard some of his Pastor's comments- something he previously denied. So he was caught in an outright like.

But despite this he gave a great speech. The bigger problem for Obama is that had he given it earlier it would have been seen as a moral speech and now it is merely political. That is a shame because what he said is important for people to hear.

Posted by: Peter | March 19, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Such ugly comments, this country will never, NEVER get past race. It's like we're looking at ourselves in the mirror and see that we're fat, but will never do anything about it.

When we have another 4 years of Republican ruin, Democrats will have no one to blame but ourselves.

The article itself was poor example of Journalism at best.

Posted by: Southern_Girl | March 19, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

This entire discussion has got way out of hand, and look at all of you being no better. I see these individuals' statements constantly showing hatred simply by denoucing one race and excusing their own selves' race. Hypocritical rants, nothing more.

When will Americans stop blaming the person next to them? Why not instead work together to educate and encourage everyone, especially future generations, from all walks of life to understand and respect their fellow man. We have clearly made the point that this dividing chasm in race relations not acceptable - the pot calling the kettle black has been sorely established year after year. I urge myself and all of you to set aside differences, forgive, and step forward to take *action* in creating a harmonious, peaceful and healthy future for our children and their children. Should we let ourselves be consumed by our hypocritical rants then we will forever mark this injustice to humanity in the history books of America and the world. Is that acceptable for you? Is it ok for our future generations to look back and see failure? I say absolutely not!

Regardless of Clinton or Obama it is ultimately in the hands of "US," the people of America, to take the power into our hands and make the changes. History has taught us that it may start with one man or woman yet it always requires the strength and unity of the country to make it happen ~ that in essence is the cure for America's hypocrite disease.

Let's make our future proud.

Posted by: Gabriel Esler | March 19, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

In the past few weeks or so, I've heard many political news pundits (and many in the blogs) ask, "why did he remain with the church, or why didn't he just approach and correct him in his derogatory and degrading comments?"

Well, the minister isn't the whole church experience. It's a combination of things. There's a bond with the people, activities a sense of belonging, and let us not forget the God worship part.

I'm sure many ministers have said things that people don't agree with. Take what you want, leave what you don't. That's a good policy.

Second, in many cultures (especially in my family, very taboo), it is particularly awkward, and considered disrespectful to approach or correct someone who is considered an elder, or the one in charge.

How many of you will correct your boss, parents, your wife etc. without expecting so sort of fallout afterwords. Lets face it, it's a pretty uncomfortable postion to place yourself in.

Posted by: thelastmanstanding | March 19, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

If any one who says they were voting for Obama but are now voting for Hilary is lying, why is it that Hillary is now leading in the latest polls? Also note that this race has been essentially a tie for over a month -- supporters on both sides need to calm down and let the voters decide.

"New Gallup Poll Daily tracking finds Hillary Clinton with a 49% to 42% lead over Barack Obama in national Democratic voters' presidential nomination preference.

This is the first time Clinton has held a statistically significant lead in over a month. She last led Obama in Feb. 7-9 polling, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. Since then, the two candidates have usually been in a statistical tie, but Obama has held a lead in several of the polls, most recently in March 11-13 polling.

Obama's campaign has been plagued by controversial remarks made by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama delivered a major speech on race Tuesday to try to move beyond the controversy. The initial indications are that the speech has not halted Clinton's gaining momentum, as she led by a similar margin in Tuesday night's polling as compared to Monday night's polling."

Posted by: Why all the namecalling? | March 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

3/15/2008:
And, even though he has been a member of Trinity United for the past 20 years, Obama said he had never witnessed Wright making such statements."Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them," Obama said, adding, "What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor."
---http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/
---------------------------------
Obama on 3/19/08:
Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in the church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely.
---http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801081.html?sid=ST2008031801183

Posted by: Obama liar | March 19, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

When was the last time a politician spoke with such honesty, or touched on an issue so sensitive? The speech was awesome, and whether like or not, it's great place to start with change.

This speech was a demonstration of his ability to deal with adversity head on. I don't think anyone can deny that.

It not only revealed his leadership prowess, it demonstrated his sense of honesty as a forthcoming person. We haven't seen this in a politician for some time now.

Change begins with "US". Unity is very important. The time for change is now. Listen to the message.

The United States can't continue on the current path of destruction. NOT THIS TIME!!!

Posted by: thelastmanstanding | March 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

John McCain will not win the election because current parties don't win when the economy is as bad as it is.

The democrates will get in, but I think it will only be a four term because the current situation is so bad that come 2012, it will still be a mess and voters will mistakenly vote them out.

As we all know, (or should realize) a four year term is not long enough to fix the current mess. Who ever gets in will spend one in a half to two of the four years campaigning for the next election.

Posted by: thelastmanstanding | March 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Statistically, a lot of those criticizing Obama also voted for Bush when they had the chance to do otherwise. They didn't have a problem then with Falwell, Robertson, and others like them. They may not have been Bush's 'official' pastors, but they were frequent vistors to the White House and gave lot's of 'guidance'.

Posted by: JimP | March 19, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Geez, he should get 44 noses just for changing his ca-ca story so many times.

He lied about rezko, he lied about wright,
what else is he lying about?
\

Posted by: newagent99 | March 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Geez, he should get 44 noses just for changing his ca-ca story so many times.

He lied about rezko, he lied about wright,
what else is he lying about?
\

Posted by: newagent99 | March 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It is quite amusing how the obama fanatics characterized the speech. Stunning! Eloquent, Brillant. Even the gasbag Chris Matthews equate the speech to the speeches of MLK and Abe Lincoln.

Baloney. MLK and Lincoln did their speech in all sincerity and with noble intent. Obama did his to save his political butt.
I am sorry but this speech is opportunistic, self-serving and made for political convenience.

After embracing Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and using him in his ascent to Chicago politics, he conveniently removed him from his campaign thinking that he could quell the nagging question of his association with this hateful preacher.

Funny,what he said last Friday that he was not aware of the controversial rantings of his pastor, he conveniently admit that he knows about it after all.

This man will never be president. If the Democratic Party choose him to be the party's nominne, he will lose the election. Not only that, as the standard bearer of the party, he will take down others with him

I can already see the Republican 527's playing day and night the rants of Obama's pastor. They may even create a bumper sticker " GODDAM AMERICA" with the pictures of Obama and Wright side by side.

Posted by: tim591 | March 19, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Barack O-BAA-Ma
The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

http://www.squidoo.com/BarackObamamovies

Posted by: Pollie | March 19, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone confirm for me whether or not there is a connection between Jim Davis and the Clintons? Based upon something I read online in the past 48 hours, this may be the 'item' Hillary Clinton spoke of months ago that she was 'holding in abeyance for the time being' and 'not wanting to use it yet'...

Can anyone confirm if the Wright story is indeed what she was 'holding for another time'?

Posted by: NanD | March 19, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

I'll give you facts:

1- Fox news and the tasteless tactics of the neocon right DROVE this story with their over-played YouTube Rev Wright snippets!

2- Pubs are terrified of Obama, because they know he'll unite the country, the young voters, the disenchanted pubs and independents who are disgusted with the mess the Bush/Cheney administration has put us in! And no one will vote for 4 more years of that w/McCain bomba Iran.

3- Pubs are so desperate this year, that they will vote for Hillary in the primaries to (a- keep the race going longer, and B - pray she gets the nomination- so they have a chance in November)

4- WELL NOT THIS TIME... Barack will still win the nomination. Dems will win by a landslide and dominate the ticket and take over Congress and bring the troops home. And Barack will restore respectability of the US around the world, inspite of the dilusional, racist, minds of the far right who cherish Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannerty the preachers fear and hate. Do some fact checking on those two liars, you'll run out of disk space planting long noses across the world.

Posted by: justinBoston | March 19, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I'll give you facts:

1- Fox news and the tasteless tactics of the neocon right DROVE this story with their over-played YouTube Rev Wright snippets!

2- Pubs are terrified of Obama, because they know he'll unite the country, the young voters, the disenchanted pubs and independents who are disgusted with the mess the Bush/Cheney administration has put us in! And no one will vote for 4 more years of that w/McCain bomba Iran.

3- Pubs are so desperate this year, that they will vote for Hillary in the primaries to (a- keep the race going longer, and B - pray she gets the nomination- so they have a chance in November)

4- WELL NOT THIS TIME... Barack will still win the nomination. Dems will win by a landslide and dominate the ticket and take over Congress and bring the troops home. And Barack will restore respectability of the US around the world, inspite of the dilusional, racist, minds of the far right who cherish Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannerty the preachers fear and hate. Do some fact checking on those two liars, you'll run out of disk space planting long noses across the world.

Posted by: justinBoston | March 19, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Obama was about 26 years old when he met Rev. Wright. That age is a very trying time for many young folks. Some simply decide to ignore the church and God.
Rev. Wright offered him Christianity instead of other religions. Thank God for that.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama claims he is going to end the war. Gee that isn't what one of his top advisors said - remember, the one who had to resign because of the "monster" remark.

Posted by: jorjan | March 19, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

jorjan: Using the most current information about what's happening on the ground in the war before beginning a pullout, now that would actually be a good (smart)thing.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

What real is really worrisome;

Does Barack Obama believe in the fulminations his pastor preaches?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1901


.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

As a Canadian, I have been watching the primaries with great interest. If I was able to vote, I would have voted for Obama. However, the revelations of his Church, his Rev. friend and his Chicago real estate dealings have changed my mind.

I doubt that Obama will be able to whether this storm. His support will continue to dwindle as people find out more.

I hate to say it but you will likely end up with Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

You Americans really won't have much of a choice - having to vote for Clinton or McCain. With Clinton's past (if people knew or find out about the details!) McCain will be your next president. Hard to believe - but appears a pretty sure bet, in my opinion.

Your Federal party leaders are worse than what we have here in Canada. A pretty sad comment to say the least.

Posted by: Basil | March 19, 2008 8:34 PM | Report abuse

While you were "checking facts", did you bother to listen to Wright's sermons in context? How can you ask what did he hear and when did he hear it, if you don't even know what he would have heard? A fact-checker would know that the clips played on the cable news stations were edited together, with preceding and following phrases cut-off. Check it out for yourself.

Posted by: mjfromia | March 19, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama is true in his reference that sermons on sensitive issues are preached in the pulpits of all denominations . It should be borne in mind, that christian believers owe higher allegiance to God than their government. Condemning or taking a stand on an issue against policy of government does not necessarily imply anti-patriotism. Also, hyperbole is an important literary technique (common in the bible) used in sermons that may seem extreme to the casual hearer. Sermons on homosexuality, abortion, discrimination, religious intolerance may not be necessarily politically correct. The fact remains that USA has yet to recover from the wounds of racial discrimination.

Posted by: Ajay | March 19, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama may have just exposed his Achilles heel. I care not what folks think, Im voting for Hillary, I always planned to vote for Hillary, and each new scandal that hits the Obama camp just convinces me that Im correct in supporting Hillary.

Posted by: irishgrl | March 19, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

I voted for McGovern, Carter (regret that one)and Clinton. Voted for Barack in the Tenn. primary. In the last few days, after watching the videos, I just got off the train. A bigot is a bigot, no matter what the color

Posted by: Allan | March 19, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I voted for McGovern, Carter (regret that one)and Clinton. Voted for Barack in the Tenn. primary. In the last few days, after watching the videos, I just got off the train. A bigot is a bigot, no matter what the color

Posted by: Allan | March 19, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Tim591..you take away what you bring to something..if you look at it with a closed mind and heart, then you get from this speech the "hating", bigoted attitude you've expressed. Good luck with that. I'm really glad I'm not stuck inside YOUR head. That would be like a prison sentence. God is good.

Posted by: janbana | March 19, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse


OBAMA NEVER SPOKE OUT OR WALKED OUT OF THAT CHURCH

OBAMA REFUSES TO WEAR A UNITED STATES FLAG PIN ON HIS LAPEL. WHILE YOUNG AMERICANS DIE EVERY DAY FOR THAT FLAG. YET HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

OBAMA'S WIFE SAYS SHE'S NEVER BEEN PROUD OF AMERICA. WHY?

OBAMA REFUSED TO PUT HIS HAND TO HIS HEART AND PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATS FLAG? WHY?

MY GUESS IS. HE FEELS THE SAME AS HIS "SPIRITUAL MENTOR"

WHO WOULD BRING THEIR CHILDREN UP IN THAT HATEFUL, RABID, RACIST PLACE?

NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND HE'S A LIAR. FIRST HE DIDN'T HEAR IT. THEN HE DID.

MR. OBAMA IS IN LOVE WITH EXCUSES.

HE IS UNELECTABLE.

FOR GOOD REASONS.

Posted by: Thinker | March 19, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Washington Times
Obama solicits La Raza backing
By Stephen Dinan
July 23, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama told La Raza in Miami Beach yesterday that he marched in an immigration rally.
________________________________________
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. -- Sen. Barack Obama told the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group yesterday that he earned their support for his presidential campaign by marching in last year's May 1 immigrant rallies and challenged them to learn whether others met that standard.

"Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk -- because I walked," Mr. Obama said at the National Council of La Raza's annual convention in Miami Beach. "I didn't run away from the issue, and I didn't just talk about it in front of Latino audiences."


Here is link to the Video made in Miami on July 22. http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1178875570?bclid=1173355318&bctid=1125998129

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | March 19, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

When will Americans disown their founding fathers for owning slaves?

Anyway, Sally Quinn had a very interesting article on her blog:

"And who can forget the Rev. Billy Graham's unfortunate conversations with Richard Nixon and H.R. Haldeman about the Jews? They made anti-Semitic jokes, talked about which reporters were Jewish and how reporting had deteriorated since more Jews had become journalists. Nixon complained (on tape) that the Jews had a "stranglehold on the country" and Billy Graham responded: "If you get elected a second time then we might be able to do something."


Billly Graham has been a spiritual adviser to our presidents for years, including Bill Clinton and our current President Bush but none of them has repudiated him.

The point is, we've all been there, with family, friends, or spiritual advisers."
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/03/our_friends_and_their_views.html#more

Posted by: tchanta | March 19, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

"Change" Obama

The question is: Have you ever tried to change Rev. Wrights views or just sit for 20 years.

A quote from: Lyndon B. Johnson

"the truth with the bark off"

Posted by: wakeupamerica | March 19, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Will we ever have a presidential race where there is no polling data based on race? Imagine what we are telling the rest of the world when the media spend hours on displaying and discussing polling data on race. That says a lot to the rest of the world about racial problems in our country.

Despite what our histories are, to make progress, we have to go beyond the color of the skin and come together to solve common problems.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 19, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of hearing about slaverly,if ,you don't like it here go to ,Africa . Obama would've bee draft dogger,if there was a war in his time

Posted by: farmhand | March 19, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm tired of hearing about slaverly,if ,you don't like it here go to ,Africa . Obama would've bee draft dogger,if there was a war in his time

Posted by: farmhand | March 19, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Holy Cow! Reading through the blog responses...all this spitting of bile, vindictive statements, crazily overblown self-rigteous and freaked-out rants. In criticisms of a few soundbites of a rant by another. Its all so ridiculous. I felt sad listening to those comments made by Wright, but it didn't change my opinion that Barack Obama is a person of sound judgment and basic honesty. I wouldn't trust someone who screened every acquaintance for potential political damage. I love a lot of people I totally disagree with! Am I going to dump them and socialize solely with people who only agree with--how vain!!!

Posted by: Phoenix39 | March 20, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary lied, you'd have it printed in every paper. When Obama does it, it is "less than candid."

He also said he was "never a Muslim."--but school records show he was registered as a Muslim. Now, I'm not saying that he's stilla Muslim, I'm just saying he was "less than candid." Oh, gee, guess Obama doesn't lie because he's been "In the speech on race that he delivered in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Barack Obama effectively conceded that he had been less than fully candid in his earlier remarks about Jeremiah Wright."

Posted by: Bev | March 20, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary lied, you'd have it printed in every paper. When Obama does it, it is "less than candid."

He also said he was "never a Muslim."--but school records show he was registered as a Muslim. Now, I'm not saying that he's stilla Muslim, I'm just saying he was "less than candid." Oh, gee, guess Obama doesn't lie because he's been "In the speech on race that he delivered in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Barack Obama effectively conceded that he had been less than fully candid in his earlier remarks about Jeremiah Wright."

Posted by: Bev | March 20, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary lied, you'd have it printed in every paper. When Obama does it, it is "less than candid."

He also said he was "never a Muslim."--but school records show he was registered as a Muslim. Now, I'm not saying that he's stilla Muslim, I'm just saying he was "less than candid." Oh, gee, guess Obama doesn't lie because he's been "In the speech on race that he delivered in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Barack Obama effectively conceded that he had been less than fully candid in his earlier remarks about Jeremiah Wright."

Posted by: Bev | March 20, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary lied, you'd have it printed in every paper. When Obama does it, it is "less than candid."

He also said he was "never a Muslim."--but school records show he was registered as a Muslim. Now, I'm not saying that he's stilla Muslim, I'm just saying he was "less than candid." Oh, gee, guess Obama doesn't lie because he's been "In the speech on race that he delivered in Philadelphia on Tuesday, Barack Obama effectively conceded that he had been less than fully candid in his earlier remarks about Jeremiah Wright."

Posted by: Bev | March 20, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

When does McCain start getting raked over the coals? Or is he an angel?

Posted by: Bob | March 20, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

Getting info from Newsmax? What, is Rush to busy to take your call? How bough Hannity?

Posted by: george | March 20, 2008 3:26 AM | Report abuse

Obama has ran his campaign from the beginning based on LIES and Race. Even his opposition to the war bears a closer look, when he has voted to keep funding it many times. The Media continues to restrict TRUTH when reporting about him.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama says one thing in the Huffington Post, and on Tuesday admitted that what he said in his HP message wasn't true.

Will Mathews and Olberman and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers in and out of the Obama Cult media call him on his lie?

No, they won't because he's a black man. They'd go after a woman, however, in a millisecond.

Here's what Obama said in the Huffington Post, and you know what he said in his Tuesday speech when he admitted hearing those harmful remarks made by his Pastor:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity."
--Barack Obama posting on Huffington Post, March 14, 2008

Here's what Obama said Tuesday: "Did I ever hear him (Wright) make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

This is all the evidence any undecided voter needs to judge whether this is an honest man.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | March 20, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Obama says one thing in the Huffington Post, and on Tuesday admitted that what he said in his HP message wasn't true.

Will Mathews and Olberman and the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers in and out of the Obama Cult media call him on his lie?

No, they won't because he's a black man. They'd go after a woman, however, in a millisecond.

Here's what Obama said in the Huffington Post, and you know what he said in his Tuesday speech when he admitted hearing those harmful remarks made by his Pastor:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity."
--Barack Obama posting on Huffington Post, March 14, 2008

Here's what Obama said Tuesday: "Did I ever hear him (Wright) make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

This is all the evidence any undecided voter needs to judge whether this is an honest man.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | March 20, 2008 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Whether he was in church on July 22 matters not. He cannot explain a 20 year relationship with this pastor and his church. Christians go to church to hear the word of God, and not hate speeches. His judgement is in question because he stayed, even after ,by his own admission, he knew his pastor was a racist. He lied about it and he lied about his association with Tony Rezko. He needs more pinocchios.

Posted by: Vikki | March 20, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

we found out after the fact about Nixon... just how big a mistake that was...now are we going to make the same mistake and put someone in office that takes his family to a church that the preacher spews out hate constantly against white folks...come on folks..we can do better than that

Posted by: Terry | March 20, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

we found out after the fact about Nixon... just how big a mistake that was...now are we going to make the same mistake and put someone in office that takes his family to a church that the preacher spews out hate constantly against white folks...come on folks..we can do better than that

Posted by: Terry | March 20, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

What a bunch a heartless people, my God, glad I pray everyday for the good of mankind. What people here are saying is that I am going to alienate people I totally disagree with, hum? Does that make sense. Obama said he didn't want to hurt the guy feelings more or less when he said: "less than candid" by bringing up his racial comments. How many times you hear your relatives talked about the 'other people of color', come on. Tell the truth, do you don't talk to your family over what they said at the family party or at church. Or do you continue being family for another 20 years. Is humanly behavior especially the educated kind. No the trailer trash. About McCain he does have some 'skeletons' in the closet; just look up 'The Keating Five'. Same with Hillary.
What a bunch of bolony. This is..

Posted by: wisebetty | March 20, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

as a young republican living in this great country, as i listened to senator Barrack obama speech regarding his relationship with rev. wright, it was a proud and embarassing moment for me as a black man. the media pressed the senator to make such of speech to defend another man words and beliefs. however, the media gave george w bush a free pass after "911" when pictures of his family with the bin laden's was circulating on television and the internet. john mccain really defines a media free pass, his spiritual guides are rev. hagee and rev. parsley who preached about the destruction of islam, the catholic church and gay people.

Posted by: world'slastbreed | March 20, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Constantly? Hmm I wonder whee you got that from? Do you attend Wright's Church? If you do, Why do you keep attending? Come on people think for yourself. The pulpit is the moral compass of the community it is seated in. Can anyone find anything racist or anti-American in wright's sermons? let's compare all the candidates surrogates and words they have used. Or is this a double standard?

Posted by: Richard | March 20, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

did george w bush defend his relationship with the world most wanted terrorist family? did john mccain defend his relationship with rev hagee and rev parsley who preached the destruction of the catholic church, islam and gay people? " WE HAVE TO BE FAIR "

Posted by: WORLD'SLASTBREED | March 20, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

A few thoughts...

Wright was not just Obama's pastor, he was a friend and a mentor. A mentor is someone you place in a superior position because you want to learn from them and be like them. To me, Wright and Obama seem like opposits...why would Obama be with someone like Wright?

If my pastor said even one comment like what Wright did, I would talk to him after the service. The conversation would go like this, "I can't be a part of a church that has views like that. Please remove me from the church directory."

I have ended friendships over racist statements. If an employee said a racial slur I would fire them on the spot. I find that type of behavior so offensive that I will not put up with it. So why did Obama? Why would Obama raise his children in that kind of church?

Posted by: Calla | March 20, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"his spiritual guides are rev. hagee and rev. parsley"

That is incorrect. Neither of those two are McCain's pastors, advisors, etc.

Posted by: Calla | March 20, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I have always considered myself to be a liberal. I have raised my children to think for themselves. I belief in the red, white and blue. However, I can't belief a well educated-political canditate in all good faith, could actually, attend such a church. My whole life, I have tried to respect other people's rights of choices they themselves have chosen. However, to classify all whites as evil, deserving only the worst is crazy. Slavery is a thing of the past. It is a terrible truth we must all live with. The Native American Indian wars is a terrible shame we live with. The new Mexican slavery is a disgrace, there is plenty of burden, and guilt being an american, however, it is a society where we are to evolve and reach equality, someday. We can't dwell on the past, we can't live in the past, we have to keep trying. Every one deserves the right to make personal choices,but we the citizens of United States have to assure that the principles, that our government was founded on are protected. Vote with your heart and soul, for the future of America depends on it.

Posted by: Peggy | March 20, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

The current furore over whether or not Barack Obama heard his pastor utter those specific diatribes doesn't do justice to the reality of America or to the controversial message of the Gospels. Christ's message was, and remains, politically and religiously controversial and the reality is that America is peppered with controversial religious leaders who have expressed equally controversial political and religious views as those of Reverend Wright. I've heard some of them speak and marvelled at the ability of those religious gurus to command the respect of so many, despite their political views and interpretations of Christ's message, and to even be consulted by the country's political leaders. But here's the catch: if Americans choose to condemn and dismiss Senator Obama simply because of his association with Reverend Wright, as opposed to debating whether or not he shared those controversial viewpoints, then the rest of the world could be forgiven for cynically dismissing all Americans by virtue of their association with President George W. Bush. After all, Americans voted Mr. Bush into office - twice - and his words and actions have been controversial to say the least.

But the rest of the world, extremists aside, has not formed such a harsh view of Americans. Even in the darkest days of the past seven years, Europeans empathised with their American neighbours and lamented the hardships that the Bush administration foisted upon its citizens. The point is that we should base our judgment of an individual on their values and not solely on the values of someone with whom they are associated. There are many reasons why an individual chooses to attend one church over another and if Barack Obama was attending his church for reasons other than Reverend Wright's political rhetoric, then he deserves to be cut some slack. Based on what I have seen, read and heard, American citizens still enjoy the support of the broader world community and they look forward to seeing Americans elect a leader who will at least attempt to elevate America rather than merely settle for "business as usual". Will Americans recognise the opportunity that is in front of them and seize it? It has been said that we get the leaders we deserve. The question is what kind of leader do Americans feel they deserve?

Posted by: MindfulObserver | March 20, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4805737136221962023
For those of you who have used the snippets of Rev Wrights sermon that you heard on TV to denigrate Obama. Here is the link that gives you more context of Rev Wrights sermon. You will never hear this on any news station who calls them self fair and balanced or the best political team, because there is no ratings or viewer ship in telling the truth!

Those of you who stated that they were once believers of Obama's candidacy. I don't believe you! For you would have done the research. Vote for whomever you desire, just take the time to educate yourself.

Get out of your Orwellian frame of mind and think!

Posted by: Richard | March 20, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

Calm down and think about this.

1st Take into consideration that the news media is mostly about hype. . .for ratings.

Hype, hype, hype.

Posted by: henry | March 20, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately it is over for Obama. A president does not have to be truthful (e.g. the Clintons and most if not all of our recent past presidents), faithful (B Clinton again) or smart (sorry G W Bush).

But the one thing a president must be is patriotic. Obama is obviously not patriotic and neither is his wife. At least, not patriotic to the US. Anyone, regardless of race who argues that he is patriotic and loves this country is simply fooling themselves.


Posted by: Jansi | March 20, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

how about fact checking the media who have convinced Americans that Wright is a racist America-hating bigot etc ,etc. with little evidence except for a few minutes of sermons taken out of context. They continue to parrot each other in the universal conclusion that this is true and universal condemnation of this man when any sane person who watches the full sermons would come to a different conclusion. they also fail to provide any rebuttal or context as it is obvious their aim is to demonize and sensationalize - create a homegrown Sadam for America to hate and to use as an excuse for hating Obama. enough already

Posted by: oredl | March 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

oredl

Here is one video that you should watch about Obama: http://election.newsmax.com/mccain_aide/?s=al&promo_code=47A6-1

Here is one you should watch about Clinton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0-HkVcMOSw&feature=related

No matter which of these win the democratic race we are unfortunately going to end up with the Republicans again. NOT a good thing, unless you want more wars.

How is that with 303,682,394 people in the United States we end up with these three people as our choice for the next president of the USA? There must be someone better.

We get what we deserve over and over again, not what we need.

Posted by: Jansi | March 21, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Was he or was he not in the church on July 22?

You guys sound like Bill Clinton parsing the meaning of "is."

The voters will know how many noses to apportion to Senator Obana.

Posted by: WylieD | March 21, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

I have two brothers, one on the left, the other on the religious right, with whom I am close and whose somewhat preposterous views I have heard on numerous occasions. I have no trouble rejecting and, if someone insists, denouncing those views (though I'd normally be more courteous than that and try to understand and empathize with where they're coming from). But I would also reject demands that I "disown" them. They are my friends and family, and I embrace them with feeling while rejecting and more like laughing at their political views.

I can't believe my experience in such is other than typical for all of us who try to understand and empathize with others---especially those close to us. It could hardly be more obvious from everything that's easily known about Senator Obama that views like his pastor's are very far from everything he stands for. Only someone already committed to opposing him could conclude otherwise.

Posted by: Chuck Herz | March 22, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

I have two brothers, one on the left, the other on the religious right, with whom I am close and whose somewhat preposterous views I have heard on numerous occasions. I have no trouble rejecting and, if someone insists, denouncing those views (though I'd normally be more courteous than that and try to understand and empathize with where they're coming from). But I would also reject demands that I "disown" them. They are my friends and family, and I embrace them with feeling while rejecting and more like laughing at their political views.

I can't believe my experience in such is other than typical for all of us who try to understand and empathize with others---especially those close to us. It could hardly be more obvious from everything that's easily known about Senator Obama that views like his pastor's are very far from everything he stands for. Only someone already committed to opposing him could conclude otherwise.

Posted by: Chuck Herz | March 22, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Of course it would be better to "...try to understand and empathize..." with people say racially offensive things. The problem with the modern American left, and Obama among them, is that they only apply that standard when the speaker is of a certain color; just ask Trent Lott and Don Imus--both of whom were dressed down by Obama for their remarks. Lott never even mentioned race--yet Obama and the others demanded his head. Wright uses his pulpit to promote racial hatred--yet it needs to be 'understood.' This version of 'tolerance' is itself racist, as the standards are different based on the speaker's color. That is why Obama is in such a fix now; his compassion for Wright does not square with his condemnation of Lott, Imus and others.

Posted by: Gene | March 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I will vote for Obama and he will be the next President of The United States.

There is something very special about this man. If you were to invest the time to read his books - you would not hesitate to support him for the highest office in the land.
He is destined for greatness and we are fortunate to be alive to witness a "once in a lifetime candidate" - as Gov Richardson stated.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I will vote for Obama and he will be the next President of The United States.

There is something very special about this man. If you were to invest the time to read his books - you would not hesitate to support him for the highest office in the land.
He is destined for greatness and we are fortunate to be alive to witness a "once in a lifetime candidate" - as Gov Richardson stated.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

I will vote for Obama and he will be the next President of The United States.

There is something very special about this man. If you were to invest the time to read his books - you would not hesitate to support him for the highest office in the land.
He is destined for greatness and we are fortunate to be alive to witness a "once in a lifetime candidate" - as Gov Richardson stated.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Michael Dobbs: Re: "What did he hear--and when did he hear it?" I agree with AF's comment (posted March 19, 2008 09:04) that "This is a disgraceful "fact-check."" I also completely agree with the comments posted by RJR | March 19, 2008 10:46 AM, and John Bacon | March 19, 2008 10:52 AM. I think that you made a mistake. You appear to discount the NewsMax report. You also appeared to find aspects of Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech creditworthy. However, apparently based upon one sentence and an affirmative from Obama's March 18 speech, you conclude that Obama "effectively conceded that he had been less than fully candid in his earlier remarks about Jeremiah Wright" and that it is clear "that he was more aware of the potentially inflammatory nature of his Wright's sermons than he previously acknowledged." Yet the statement wherein Obama acknowledged that he had sat in church while Wright made "remarks that could be considered controversial" was lifted completely out of context. If you had dug just a little deeper into the March 18 speech by Obama, you would have seen that Obama did not contradict his denials about his knowledge of the inflammatory remarks in Rev. Wright's sermons that caused the recent firestorm, nor did Obama contradict his statements that he had not been in the church when these particular remarks were made. From the actual speech, with CAPs added to show the context: "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy and in some cases pain. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. DID I EVER HEAR HIM MAKE REMARKS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL WHILE I SAT IN THE CHURCH? YES. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. BUT THE REMARKS THAT HAVE CAUSED THIS RECENT FIRESTORM WEREN'T SIMPLY CONTROVERSIAL. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

Posted by: Leila Needham | March 22, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

the really sad thing is that the video that caused the firestorm was a lie. Whoever edited that clip cut out the part where Wright said he was quoting ambassador Peck. Why do we not see a major retraction from the news media?

My guess is they are too embarrassed to admit that they were taken in. Either that or they are bound and determined to smear Obama out of the campaign.

Posted by: typical grandmother | March 23, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

I have read these posts and most have accused Rev Wright of being a race baiting anti American bigot.

Prove it. Provide documentation from Rev Wright that is anti american or bigoted. Prove it. I don't mean provide a 30 second clip on u-tube. Read the content of the sermon and the context. Show me 1 line that proves Rev Wright said anything wrong.

You have all been "hoodwinked".

Posted by: dotheresearch | March 23, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Fact checking the fact checker

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity."
--Barack Obama posting on Huffington Post, March 14, 2008

Statement is true and accurate

The other part of Obamas comments

he acknowledged that he had sat in church while Wright made "remarks that could be considered controversial."

Again the statement appears to be honest and candid.

Posted by: Vince | March 23, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

I'm 100% in agreement with stonecreek and ask (Washington Post-Fact Checker) to fact check its own false statement and do a FULL RETRACTION!If you don't have any PROOF! STOP MAKING UP FALSE STATEMENTS. "There's no evidence to conclude that Obama or his campaign have told anything other than the truth on his church attendance on two particular occasions, yet he still gets TWO Pinocchios"- STONECREEK

Posted by: Washingtonian | March 23, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Take a look at the entire video in which Rev Wright allegedly made the comments blaming America for 9/11 and you will find that he was quoting Ambassador Edward Peck who made those comments on Fox News! Why is the media not covering this fact. If you watch the entire videeo around 3 minutes in the Reverend Wright asks the church members if they saw the Ambassador on Fox news, he then reads the from a sheet of paper the words of Ambassador Peck!
So where is the fact checker on this little piece of information?

Posted by: Mlu | March 23, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at the entire video in which Rev Wright allegedly made the comments blaming America for 9/11 and you will find that he was quoting Ambassador Edward Peck who made those comments on Fox News! Why is the media not covering this fact. If you watch the entire videeo around 3 minutes in the Reverend Wright asks the church members if they saw the Ambassador on Fox news, he then reads the from a sheet of paper the words of Ambassador Peck!
So where is the fact checker on this little piece of information?

Posted by: Mlu | March 23, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Let's check the veracity of how the MSM has portrayed Rev. Wright. Especially given the release of more of the video which I AM SURE THE MSMS HAD access to.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO

Posted by: halisi hussein | March 24, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

Let's get this straight.

Jim Davis, a part-time, freelance "reporter" (sic) submits a story to NewsMax, (which is widely known to be very loose with the truth.)

Near the top of Davis's story is the sentence; "In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22."

Jim Davis later claims to have destroyed his notes, but is "98 to 99%" certain his account is true.

So, which is it? "in fact", or "98 to 99%" factual?

No legitimate professional journalist would ever use the word "in fact" in a news story. That's a Basic Journalism 101 no-no. Toss the entire article in the round bin where it belongs. And close the lid tightly, because this "factual article" has a very strong odor of bad fish.

Posted by: ChuckL | March 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Some of the comments coming out of this are pretty sickening. Even if you do not think that Obama would make a good president, you can't let yourself become so narrow minded that you won't stop to think about what Obama speaks about. There is a legacy of anger within many people, and it doesn't come out of nothing. To dismiss Obama as racist and anti-white is precisely the kind of discourse we need to stop in this country. Maybe if we all stopped looking for enemies, and started looking at why people see things differently, we can start to overcome some of that anger, and start focusing on helping every American. Do you really think jumping on a few key words without looking at the whole history of a subject helps anything? Let's elevate the discourse from sensationalism to substance.

Posted by: Peter | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a 53 Democrat and I must say that I am most concern about the Democrats in America today. I have read so many blogs about Rev. Wright being the REASON some voters are rejecting Sen. Obama. Rev. Wright is the excuse - he is not the REASON some are against Obama. It seems to me that we Democrats have forgotten what the Democratic Party stands for. Freedom of religion is one of the precious rights that America is founded on and it is most disturbing that someone claiming they are TRUE DEMOCRATS is using an American's choice of religion as the reason for not supporting him. By no means am I agreeing with the Rev. Wright's words and these awful words were rejected by Sen. Obama but some even go as far as to demand that he leave his church to satisfy you. My God, are we Communist or what? We, Democrats - of all people - are suppose to be choosing a candidate who best represent the Democratic party's basic constitution which is rights to all people without consideration of gender, race, religion, age, or socioeconomic status. The Democratic voters are actually saying I am voting based on gender. I am voting based on race. I am not voting based on choice of religion. Remember the pledge of allegiance? It says, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge of allegiance has basically been Obama's platform and is the main reason I am voting for him because I am a TRUE DEMOCRAT and passionately believed we were the party which embraced ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISABLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. I am voting for the future Presidents named Susie Wong or Jose Mendez or Ronald Goldberg or Sandy Hasselhoff or Helen Honolulu. This election has definitely shed some light on how truly Democratic we are not. We will actually use gender, race, or religion has a deterrent for seeking a representative of America. I am a woman so I should choose Hillary? I am older (50+) so should I choose Hillary? I am Black so should I choose Obama? I am disabled so should I choose Obama for tax-free plan for elderly? I am poor because Iraq continues to drain our economy so should I reject Hillary for voting for Iraq war? I struggled to go to college and graduated with great student loan debt so should I choose Obama? I am Church of Christ is Obama automatic for me? All of these reasons are silly in America. Voting Democrat should automatically include all of these concerns not singled out for or against a Candidate. Well, it seems to me that maybe the time has come for the Democrat party to split and a new party may need to emerge. How about the American party?

Posted by: B.Jackson | March 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

I am a 53 Democrat and I must say that I am most concern about the Democrats in America today. I have read so many blogs about Rev. Wright being the REASON some voters are rejecting Sen. Obama. Rev. Wright is the excuse - he is not the REASON some are against Obama. It seems to me that we Democrats have forgotten what the Democratic Party stands for. Freedom of religion is one of the precious rights that America is founded on and it is most disturbing that someone claiming they are TRUE DEMOCRATS is using an American's choice of religion as the reason for not supporting him. By no means am I agreeing with the Rev. Wright's words and these awful words were rejected by Sen. Obama but some even go as far as to demand that he leave his church to satisfy you. My God, are we Communist or what? We, Democrats - of all people - are suppose to be choosing a candidate who best represent the Democratic party's basic constitution which is rights to all people without consideration of gender, race, religion, age, or socioeconomic status. The Democratic voters are actually saying I am voting based on gender. I am voting based on race. I am not voting based on choice of religion. Remember the pledge of allegiance? It says, "I pledge allegiance to the Flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." The pledge of allegiance has basically been Obama's platform and is the main reason I am voting for him because I am a TRUE DEMOCRAT and passionately believed we were the party which embraced ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISABLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. I am voting for the future Presidents named Susie Wong or Jose Mendez or Ronald Goldberg or Sandy Hasselhoff or Helen Honolulu. This election has definitely shed some light on how truly Democratic we are not. We will actually use gender, race, or religion has a deterrent for seeking a representative of America. I am a woman so I should choose Hillary? I am older (50+) so should I choose Hillary? I am Black so should I choose Obama? I am disabled so should I choose Obama for tax-free plan for elderly? I am poor because Iraq continues to drain our economy so should I reject Hillary for voting for Iraq war? I struggled to go to college and graduated with great student loan debt so should I choose Obama? I am Church of Christ is Obama automatic for me? All of these reasons are silly in America. Voting Democrat should automatically include all of these concerns not singled out for or against a Candidate. Well, it seems to me that maybe the time has come for the Democrat party to split and a new party may need to emerge. How about the American party?

Posted by: B.Jackson | March 25, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse


This lie is absolute


In 1 hour and 20 minutes Obama was supposed to have:

o gone to a 7:00 am service
o drove 20 minutes to the airport
o parked car
o checked-in
o checked baggage
o went thru airport security
o boarded plance 20 min. before takeoff
o plane TAKES OFF at 8:20 am`


End of Discussion .....

I find it absurd the assertion Then hurriedly drove the twenty minutes drive to the airport and then managed to board a plane the departed at 8:20 am after checking in, checking baggage, going thru security, boarding

Posted by: SkyPete | March 26, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

FACT: THIS IS FROM OBAMAS SPEACH ON RACE! DID I KNOW HIM TO BE AN OCCASIONALLY FIERCE CRITIC OF AMERICAN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY? OF COURSE. DID I EVER HEAR HIM MAKE REMARKS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTROVERSIAL WHILE I SAT IN CHURCH? YES. DID I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE MANY OF HIS POLITICAL VIEWS? ABSOLUTELY JUST AS I'M SURE MANY OF YOU HAVE HEARD REMARKS FROM YOUR PASTORS, PRIESTS OR RAVVIS WITH WHICH YOU STRONGLY DISAGREED.

Posted by: JABBER | March 26, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

There is also no evidence yet that he did not attend church tha day! There is only a denial. However...
The Secret Service has a record of where they were that day.
If he used a chartered plane, what do those airport and charter records show of departure and return.
If he did not attend the early morning service, there was plenty of time to attend the evening service.
Considering the detail in the original report and that Davis attended several services with Obama in the month of July, then, if they didn't attend church on 22 July, it's much easier to conclude that the event occurred at least one time in July, than that it did not occur at all.
Obama's statement is insufficiently forthcoming. e.g. In all the services he attended in July, did the described events never occur?
The real fact is: It can't be determined!

Posted by: Frank Lee | March 29, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I would like you to check on Rezko' contributions to Obama. First he said Rezko gave him $150,000, then he said $250,000 and he said he gave it to charity. I want to know the name of the charity and for him to provide a receipt to see if he is telling the truth.

Posted by: Janie Sanchez | March 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

When is the media going to ask Obama if he agrees with his tight knit church that gave racist Louis Farrakhan their man of the year award for what they called his greatness? What greatness does Obama's church see is a racist and does Obama think he deserved the award?

Posted by: tiredofit | March 31, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

sjhnayqr sitqg efwuvat jwroyvkb wtbyvzje dfbvws nwjlytmec

Posted by: iplod mufa | April 16, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

eftjxdm bmxufqndy nexkbqju htdlygu bpxvdju qevbryla nohd http://www.qktmfoh.bcazpqy.com

Posted by: kdfzepy jlbr | April 16, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

cjobn wklub oclrs
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4554 cheap generic ultram

Posted by: cheap generic ultram | May 10, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

ludgxv wzevnar ynmrtgb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4560 ultram side effects

Posted by: ultram side effects | May 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:46 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ultram line | May 11, 2008 6:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: is ultram addictive | May 11, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy online ultram | May 11, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: buy online ultram | May 11, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: drug medication ultram | May 11, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: drug medication ultram | May 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

axsokhm cgqe gqkdx hmojw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4503 ultram and fibromyalgia

Posted by: ultram and fibromyalgia | May 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

axsokhm cgqe gqkdx hmojw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4503 ultram and fibromyalgia

Posted by: ultram and fibromyalgia | May 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

payzrdu tuzmpnb auvcdwb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

payzrdu tuzmpnb auvcdwb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4689 propecia rogaine versus

Posted by: propecia rogaine versus | May 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

hovj ftldz rsixjy
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/effexor-anticholinergic.html effexor anticholinergic

Posted by: effexor anticholinergic | August 15, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

hovj ftldz rsixjy
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/effexor-anticholinergic.html effexor anticholinergic

Posted by: effexor anticholinergic | August 15, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: bupropion cymbalta | August 15, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

vtnjd qmxltv cribsth
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/zyban-hats.html zyban hats

Posted by: zyban hats | August 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

opvyit tbwkhmc itbpak
http://geldinggener.150m.com/kamagra-achat.html kamagra achat

Posted by: kamagra achat | August 15, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: buspar alcohol | August 16, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: trazodone and meletonin | August 16, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

qsyczxn rzkxli oeganwj
http://fendergu1.lookseekpages.com/levitra-blindness.html levitra blindness

Posted by: levitra blindness | August 16, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: wellbutrin sr and side effects duration | August 17, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

kmjxlu apemgkc qahiwr
http://knotlyri.lookseekpages.com/antidepressants-for-anxiety.html antidepressants for anxiety

Posted by: antidepressants for anxiety | August 17, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

nmojfc ofihwme efydnx
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/wolfe-effexor-xr-self-magazine.html wolfe effexor xr self magazine

Posted by: wolfe effexor xr self magazine | August 18, 2008 4:58 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: cause of hair loss | August 18, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company