Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Rev. Wright, Part Deux

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's speech -- and the question and answer service that followed -- yesterday at the National Press Club put Sen. Barack Obama's controversial former pastor right back in the national spotlight.

Obama spent the day yesterday doing his best to politely distance himself from Wright who, in his own speech, seemed to make clear his unhappiness with his former congregant. And just a few minutes ago, Obama delivered remarks saying he was "outraged" by Wright's comments, adding that "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

The story dominated the front pages of major national newspapers and led the early moments of the morning news shows. (The Fix was tuned in to "Today", which had a package on the speech by Andrea Mitchell followed by analysis by Tim Russert.)

There is now just one week between today and the crucial Indiana and North Carolina primaries. How long does Obama have to deal with this story? And does it change the calculus for the votes next week? Could it endanger his chances in Indiana or even put North Carolina in play?

The comments sections awaits your thoughts.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 29, 2008; 1:55 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama An Issue in MS-01
Next: Clinton on O'Reilly: Wright Comments 'Outrageous' and 'Offensive'

Comments

Just a few comments on Obama:

1. Like most senators, he probably spends eight months (or more per year in Washington DC, so I doubt that he's been a steady churchgoer at Trinity since campaigning for his seat or since.

2. Obama first met Wright at age 24 when he did not even attend any church. Wright introduced him to Christianity sometime after that... probably a year or two later.

3. Nobody has shown that 52 weeks a year, for the past 30+ years, that Wright has "preached" his unsavory sermons. Please provide copies of those 1000+ sermons. Be that as it may... I'm not saying what he did in those radical tirades was right. There are some truths in them, but his delivery makes them seem worse. Think about it... did we or did we not bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill 250,000 Japanese CITIZENS? The aids deal is bunk, but Tuskegee experiments on blacks for 40 years is true.

4. I still think we should be looking at the candidates and what they can do rather than looking at their baggage because they all have some. Clinton is a flat out liar who will say anything to get elected. McCain is an admitted adulterer who will accept endorsements from radical ministers, and Obama has Wright like a monkey on his back.

5. What is really pathetic is to watch losers like Sean Hanatty, he with the pen permanently affixed to his right hand (even when drinking coffee), be so frightened of Obama that he has dedicated his on-air time to creating a new "Bogeyman". He's actually worse than Rush and Coulture. Roughly 95% of Hanatty's shows are devoted to Obama, and the "saintly" Hanatty won't even mention the morally corrupt McCain, who dumped his sick and hospitalized wife to have an affair with Cindy Doll and marry her for her net worth of $100+ million.

6. Hanatty and Limbaugh spout on and on about honor, yet they don't mention that this administration is responsible for creating a civil war in Iraq and killing between 200,000 and 500,000 Iraqi civilians, and are indirectly responsible for the $4.00 gas, the trillion-dollar war, 4000 soldiers dead and 40,000 wounded. And we should be expected that we will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?

We have three marginal candidates, and anyone who thinks differently is not really paying attention. But to pay such special attention to Obama... in my mind, it makes me think Hanatty and Limbaugh are both racists at heart.

Posted by: drgrafix | May 4, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http:/www.votenic.com

Enter For The Votenic T-Shirt Giveaway Sweepstakes!

votenic.com-The Only Poll That Matters.

Posted by: votenic | May 3, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

People really need to focus on this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

If the media paid more attention to it, then we'd not even be discussing
Rev. Wright anymore~!

Posted by: Gloria | May 2, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

This is the type of thing the Media should be talking about:

Scowcroft, a former national security adviser said he agrees with the position, stated by Sen. Barack Obama, that the U.S. would benefit from having direct talks with the leaders of its most distrusted adversaries.,"Absolutely," said Scowcroft, when asked by whether he thought the next president should meet with the likes of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "It's hard to make things better if you don't talk. Scowcroft is a former Air Force general who is widely considered to be one of the preeminent foreign policy minds in the United States.

in contrast

Iran has complained to the UN about Hillary's remark that in retaliation to an attack on Israel she would obliterate Iran. She isn"t even the Democratic party nominee and she is rattling sabers -- a strategy of belligerent non-communication with key world players. We have seen for eight years how that has worked.

Iran complains to UN over Clinton's attack threat
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSflKoY8Vpa7KJzCGk8QmlG80Smw


Posted by: Kristin2 | May 2, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

This can be a message to the super delegates afraid of Obama because of Reverend Wright.

I learned this the hard way. As an African American you grow up hearing about the man, the man, the man. And I have met my fair share of racist European Americans. But the older African American men, Reverends to be exact, have taken advantage of African Americans for personal fortune and fame.

The church was about healing, but most focus on profits, almost like corporations. They have linked themselves with political movements and are very powerful. To get the African American vote, you have to go through the Church!

Some churches have property developments and a vast amount of businesses that do not reflect the member or their income levels. They get the property from the city, get grants to build the condos, get the materials as a donation, but they sell the condos/homes on lease to buy deals, using Sec 8 and rob the citizens blind.

I know several pastor's that have maids and butlers and lives in a Mansion. They are robbing the African American community blind. I heard that Keith Butlers church in Detroit has an ATM machine in the church so members do not forget to pay dues. Reverend Windell Anthony who runs the Detroit chapter of the NAACP has a $90,0000.00 dollar mortgage on his church and Bill Clinton visits the Church, he was linked to Reverend Wright who as two benzes and a $10,000,000.00 home. And the Clinton's help set up that Monday press conference!

That is what Obama will not tell the Press. He did not now about the Speeches, but he did not realize how tied Reverend Wright was with the Clintons. It was a setup, that was the Clinton secret weapon, to have Reverend Wright ruin Obama, if they needed his to.

Then Wright would get $250,000.00 for speeches and a book deal if you know what I mean!

So, Obama obviously did not agree with the Reverend, but in the game of city politics, he was the man.


Some people ask why with the growth in income levels have the African America families fallen behind and I blame drugs and for profit churches!
The African American churches have become the man!

Posted by: wrong | May 2, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

This is what the mainstream media should be reporting on. Let's make it happen:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1771494

For those of you who think this case has been thrown out or is irrelevant:

"In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25, 2008 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!." (paulvclinton.com)
Here is the kicker - the judge is a Bill Clinton appointee!

Since the media is refusing to reveal/report the Paul vs Clinton fraud case in court right now, we need to create our own movement and flood every blog with information from the case.

For those that don't know - Google Paul vs Clinton and hold on to your shirt with what you read!!

Posted by: Kb | May 2, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

What happened to the 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York Clinton promised during her 2000 New York Senate campaign? Not only did upstate New York not get the 200,000 new jobs as promised by Clinton but also they ended up losing nearly 40,000 jobs. Way to go Hillary. If you promised 200,000 jobs in New York and we lost 40,000, what will you do nationally?

Clinton has seized on a symbol of what she sees as the erosion of America's defense industrial base: a company called Magnequench which once had two factories in Indiana. The company used to make high-performance magnets used in precision-guided weapons.

A Chinese company bought Magnequench," she said in a speech in Pittsburgh on April 14. "The people of Indiana, the company and the elected officials begged the Bush administration to block the Chinese company from moving the jobs to China.... Not only did the jobs go to China, but so did the intellectual property and the technological know-how to make those magnets.... I'm not comfortable with the fact that we now have to buy magnets for our bombs from China."

She left out this fact:

Under the 1988 Exon-Florio law, either President Bill Clinton in 1995 or President Bush in 2003 could have blocked the sale of Magnequench or its merger with AMR Technologies.

• Every time you turn around someone from the Clinton's camp or supporters are continually injecting race into the election.

• Clinton prevarication on the Bosnia incident was a total fabrication with visual aids (Clinton acting it out on more than one occasion). This was not just Clinton misspeaking but it was a whole fantasy story that she acted out on 5 or 6 separate occasions.

• Clinton said that Obama did not own up to what he said? This coming from someone (Clinton), who voted for the war in Iraq and still refuses to apologize for her vote or admit that it was a mistake. The closest she has come is to say if she had it to do over, she would not have voted for the war in Iraq.

• Hillary Clinton said that Obama's words were divisive. Listen to what Clinton (be honest) is saying and tell me who is the one being divisive in this campaign.

• . The Clintons made over 100 million dollars in 8 years. Most working Americans will never see that type of money in our lifetime.

These are some of the reasons why the lead closing for Obama. Clinton is trying to divert attention away from her many shortcomings and fabricated stories.

Hillary Clinton has touted her foreign policy experience, so let us look at the countries that she has purportedly helped or attempted to help by her own account.

Rwanda - Beginning on April 6, 1994, it was the start of one the most horrific cases of genocide in recent times. On that date (aforementioned), a plane carrying the Rwandan and Burundian presidents, both Hutus, was shot down over Kigali, the Rwandan capital, 8 months after the peacekeepers arrived to help (from Bangladesh and Ghana lead by General Romeo Dallaire of Canada). The red phone rang off the hook but neither Clinton chose to answer the phone. The Clintons were kept informed of the escalating situation in Rwanda but chose to ignore it. General Dallaire states: "He told me that his estimates indicated that it would take the deaths of 85,000 Rwandans to justify the risking of the life of one American soldier." This statement came from the Clinton Administration. In the next 100 days following April 6, 1994, upward of 1,000,000 Rwandans (men, women and babies) were slaughtered. This number works out to be 10,000 men, women and babies killed each day. Machetes (not exactly a powerhouse military) killed most of the Rwandans. There were arguments from the Clinton administration about who would pay for it and if it should be called genocide. While the Clintons were arguing about semantics babies were being slaughtered. General Romeo Dallaire of Canada did what he could even when ordered to leave Rwanda he refused doing what he could. Where was Hillary Clinton's voice through all of this, but she claimed to wanting to do something. Rwanda is an example of her foreign experience that she likes to tout. Is this the experience we want to answer the red phone or shall I say not answer the red phone.

Bosnia - Macedonian had opened its border to refugees before Hillary Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. Hillary Clinton's so-called mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea (I guess these were Hillary's foreign advisors). That was Hillary Clinton's involvement in this particular situation. This is another claim of her experience in foreign policy.

Northern Ireland - Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process. Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland, said the first lady's visits were not decisive in the negotiating breakthroughs in Northern Ireland. Hillary played no role in negotiating with any leaders in the peace process.
China - Hillary Clinton "got strong reviews for threading the diplomatic needle with an impassioned speech that contained a wide-ranging denunciation of human rights abuses worldwide. She criticized China, without naming it directly." Sounds familiar to what Hillary Clinton has been saying about "giving good speeches", we know her speech came without any action on her part.
Iraq - Voted to go to war in Iraq, even though she claims it was for diplomatic purposes as she has previously proclaimed in her speeches leading up to the Iraq war. There is one problem with that and that is she held a press conference (the same day as Bush said that it seemed inevitable that there would be war) that stated that she was backing Bush all the way. Hillary had a meeting with a women's organization 2 weeks before the start of the Iraq war to reiterate her stance on the running Saddam out of Iraq. Here is the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZcY6TGfAxE . Listen to what the women' organization has to say and Hillary's response.

Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights. If this is the foreign experience that she claims she has we do not want near the red phone, America cannot afford that kind of judgment and fabrications that Hillary brings.

"Obama simply has the problem that he happens to be Black," Adelfa Callejo said when asked if it was smart for Sen. Obama to reach out to Latino voters.
The newscaster quoted her saying "Obama's problem is that he happens to be black."
Rather than doing the right thing and reject and denounce her comments of her supporter, she laughed it off, according to the transcripts of the interview.

Clinton: "Well obviously I want us judged on our merits. I believe strongly that the fact that we have an African American and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I'm very very proud of that. I want people thought to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records, look what we stand for, look what we've done and I think that's what most voters are looking for."

Q (paraphrase) Is this something you reject and denounce?

"People have every reason to express their opinions. I just don't agree with that. I think that we should be looking at the individuals who are running."

Q - Do you still want her support, though?

Clinton laughed and said, "You know This is a free country. People get to express their opinions. A lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign. You can' take any of that as anything other than an individual opinion."

Way to go Hillary you do not stand up for what's right if it means losing support but expects her opponents to stand up. The American people need someone that will bring us together not tear us apart. Clinton has been one of the most divisive Democrats that have ever run for president.

How would Clinton ever know how frustrated, angry and yes sometimes bitter the working class American citizen feels? Obama spoke the truth even though I do not agree with how he phrased it. I know because in the field (technology) that I am in has been struck particularly hard by outsourcing and very hard to find work. I do not know about you but I (working class citizen) am frustrated, angry and at times bitter.
The Iraq war

Over 3,900 (almost 4,000) US lives lost (died) No cost can cover 1 American life let alone over 3,900
About $3,000,000,000,000 spent
• Enough money to give Americans 1,000,000 jobs at $75,000 each
• Free healthcare to over 50,000,000 Americans
• Feed every American
• Many other things beneficial for Americans
• Help put America into a recession.


NAFTA
Record job lost
• Also, help put America into a recession.
• Record job lost
• 63,000 jobs lost in February alone mainly because of NAFTA and the Iraq war


Obama, try your best to stay who you are, which is uniting the American people and try not to stoop to Hillary Clinton's negative, divisive tactics."
Ask yourself some questions: Why have so many people that were and are still close to the Clintons have endorsed Obama? Is there something that they know (being an insider) that the American public does not know? If Clinton is the best candidate for president wouldn't there close friends endorse them? If you are truthful with your answers you will see that there is definitely something wrong that is not public knowledge when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Why is it that every so-called controversy that has something to do with Obama stays in the news for months, where as the controversies that come out of the Clinton camp are given a day or two at most? Be truthful with your answers and you will agree that there is a double standard here. Is it because he is Black (he is half-white)?
Many will not vote for Obama because he is Black (his skin color) but he has transcended race, age, gender, and religious barriers. Many thought he would never make it this far and I praise the ones (white Americans) who supported Obama despite his skin color. You have shown me that there is hope in this country for all Americans. Thank you.

Posted by: FellowAmerican | May 1, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

The press has been using the Wright controversy for the months against Obama, but can you name one Clinton controversy that lasted more than a few days. You mean to tell me this has been fair to Obama. It seems like race is definitely a factor when it comes to Obama. Every time you turn around someone from the Clinton's camp or supporters are continually injecting race into the election. Many will not vote for Obama because he is Black (his skin color) but he has transcended race, age, gender, and religious barriers. Many thought he would never make it this far and I praise the ones (white Americans) who supported Obama despite his skin color. You have shown me that there is hope in this country for all Americans. Thank you.

Posted by: FellowAmerican | May 1, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

It's easy for all you Clinton haters to blame Obama's problems on the Clintons. But the truth is that Obama brought this on himself. He said so yesterday when he told people that it would have been easy to disavow the pastor the first time he opened his mouth. Well, he did not do so and now, after a weekend in which the pastor has thrown him under the bus, nobody believes him when he says that he broke with the man. When that hate sermon first came out Obama should have said something like " Boy was I ever wrong about this guy and this is the last time you see me in that church." He did not do that. He sat on the fence and his famous speech made it clear that he wanted it both ways. Now it's too late. His inexperience is shown in that he can't control this man, he does not have the clout in the Chicago black community to make him shut the hell up and he will pay the price for it. The latest polls show him even in Indiana, a state next to Illinois and a state that gets lots of Chicago TV. Since late deciders usually go for Hillary, he is in trouble there. As for NC, his 25% lead is down to Five. That too is ominous although he will probably hang on. Fact is: McCain is drooling to take on this guy and I would too if I was McCain

Posted by: Opa2 | May 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

One commenter asks, "Why can't a group of church elders approach Wright on Obama's behalf, and tell Wright to go away until after November?"

So typical. Why hide this shameful man who has mentored Obama for these 20 years? He didn't just grow his horns yesterday. Because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

The electorate has the right to know the moral suasion of the man they may put in the White House.

Obama also demurs comment on his stance on the Palastinian issue, and has questionable relations with Black Liberation Army sympathizers. Time is now to get the answers, not later.

Posted by: rangeragainstwar | May 1, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

One commenter asks, "Why can't a group of church elders approach Wright on Obama's behalf, and tell Wright to go away until after November?"

So typical. Why hide this shameful man who has mentored Obama for these 20 years? He didn't just grow his horns yesterday. Because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.

The electorate has the right to know the moral suasion of the man they may put in the White House.

Obama also demurs comment on his stance on the Palastinian issue, and has questionable relations with Black Liberation Army sympathizers. Time is now to get the answers, not later.

Posted by: rangeragainstwar | May 1, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Albertan's are paying $1.30 or more - a litre at the gas pumps. That converts to approx.$5.00 per gallon. AND Alberta's major asset is oil and gas. Most Canadians have no tax write off's - which include interest paid on mortgages and other debt- unlike the Americans. We do have national health care - for which most pay a monthly premium. Most provinces have good education programs and infrastructure. It has been tallied we pay, out of earnings, approx. 60% in tax one way or another. Noted also is high earners pay higher taxes -IF they don't have an exceptional accountant. Unbelievable it wasn't done in the beginning and people given the opportunity to stay in their homes. To rewrite the mortgages within their ability to pay. Bank CEO's weren't thinking of the calamity to the country and importantly to the lives of the homeowners. It's the people, in the end, who drive the economy -not C.E.O.'s. Clinton was correct in stating a moratorium must immediately be placed on all home repossessions. Nobody is listening. Why not?

Posted by: marlene stobbart | May 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Since Jaan/08 I, with intense interest, listened to the media commentaries on the candidates,and watched the body language. It came as no surprise when Clinton stated the obvious - Oboma was the Networks favorite. He's, without a doubt, a great orator and charmer. Clinton, a woman, knows she cannot use women's wiles in the work place. Clinton 'trained' for many years for the President's post and is the only one, in many Canadian's opinion, who can lead the U.S. out of the horrible quaigmire the country is in.
Bill Clinton, as President, when leaving his post left the U.S. in better financial shape then most she could do the same.
Quickly dropped from the media was -Obama's messengers words to Canada's gov't, "He didn't mean what he said about eliminating NAFTA" - or words to that effect. Were those words then said to impress the voters?
Twenty years of church attendance with Pastor Wrights sermons must have left some strong impressions. Watching Wrights performance damning America was sickening -for Canada is part of North 'America.' Undoubtedly, much of what Wright had said was true and Negroes were treated shabbily but times have changed.I believe that initial taped sermon was because Pastor Wright believed it would help, not hinder,Obama as their ties were so close.
I wonder who funds Obama's war chest - it can't be the students with little money.
THIS forthcoming US election is choosing the 'smartest and most able' person for President. Clinton can't be told what to do - she knows what must be done. But, obviously warm fuzzies appear to please the populace. We've had pleasers and charmers as previous Prime Ministers for which Canada paid a price. If the U.S. goes down so does Canada; we are tightly tied together - unfortunately, we don't get a vote.

Posted by: marlene stobbart | May 1, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Mr Vision, the man that foresaw all, years in advance, when it came to Iraq, appears to finally be coming around on the Wright thing. This is what suddenly became clear to him earlier today.

Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM

That should be Hillary's new mantra. Wrong on Iraq, but right on Wright.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

The videos of Wright dancing, doing marching bands, and badly imitating JFK and LBJ are almost worth a McCain presidency.

Posted by: aleks | May 1, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Black Theology
Louis Farrakhan
Obama's Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago teaches and supports both.

Obama wants to rule like this.
It's scarey and the media has a responsibilty to show them in videos until the day of the election.

Posted by: Ali | May 1, 2008 6:29 AM | Report abuse

This is Wikiepida's Definition on Black Liberation Theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology


The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, "All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice and death to white people by any means at the disposal of black people. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, 'If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' [6] to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.'[7]"[8]

So, excuse me,but it looks as if the pot is calling the kettle black. But of course it is now that the truth is coming out.


Incite racial hatred against Black Americans: Wrong it's the other way around. Go read it and weap.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 2:25 AM | Report abuse

Obama can break with Wright all he wants but you can not make me believe that this pastor just this ones uttered all this BS. Surely it happened before and you can bet that Republicans right now are looking over his previous sermons with a fine tooth comb to find, as far as they are concerned, more "jewels."If it does not come up again in the primaries you can bet that more of the same will surface in the general election.

Posted by: Opa2 | May 1, 2008 1:45 AM | Report abuse

This is Wikiepida's Definition on Black Liberation Theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology


The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, "All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice and death to white people by any means at the disposal of black people. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, 'If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' [6] to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.'[7]"[8]

So, excuse me,but it looks as if the pot is calling the kettle black. But of course it is now that the truth is coming out.


Incite racial hatred against Black Americans: Wrong it's the other way around. Go read it and weap.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

This is Wikiepida's info on BLT


The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, "All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice and death to white people by any means at the disposal of black people. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, 'If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as 'the helper of the fatherless' [6] to 'deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.'[7]"[8]

So, excuse me,but it looks as if the pot is calling the kettle black. But of course it is now that the truth is coming out.


Incite racial hatred against Black Americans: Wrong it's the other way around. Go read it and weap.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone stopping to think why the Republicans are working so hard to help Hillary win the Primary?

Posted by: boomer babe for Obama


Sorry that line has already been taken. Republicians want obama because they see hillary as their strongest competition.

That would be nice because everybody knows that is when the story really gets good. We would learn a whole bunch more "dirty laundry" if obam was the electee

Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

To the catholic issue: Deflection, the obam tatic. Don't bring the catholics into this. They have addressed and are trying to resolve their problems. The fact is Wright as 1st pastor and obam as top man is the relevent question.

When a man from that church runs for president we will ask things about that church and that pastor.

{Wright} now it's Wright and Obam and Trinity.

News Flash Obama is running for president not someone from this deflective punt.


People question why Obama didn't leave a church pastored by Mr. Wright---but don't seem to care that catholics have no problem attending a church, where the upper tier of the church found it more important to protect the brand of catholicism and its priets than it was to protect children. Why are catholics still attending chatholic churches and listenting to the current pope who may have had some knowledge about what was happening with the musical chair predator priests?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Yo, who cares about wright, obama is still the best candidate out there. He gonna winn da Iraq war by talking to them. The reason we got bombed by the Chinese in WWI was because we never talked to them before hand. General Flapjak Pershing just fought, but he never talked to nobody. So Obama can win this. I believe this.

Posted by: Obama Messiah | April 30, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

So,it looks like maybe Obama's Crazy Uncle
Rev Jerimiah Wright would be a more honest
choice for either Howard Dean as Chairman
of the DNC, or Nutcase Nancy Pelosi as the
Speaker of the House,or Democratic Senate
Majority Leader Harmless Harry Reid,since
it looks like Crazy Rev Wright has more guts and honesty then Dean,Pelosi,Reid and
did I mention Barack Hussein Obama and his
pekinese looking racist wife Michelle Obama
now then too? Oh I don't know who this
Barack Hussein Obama or Michelle Obama are
since they are soooo "Typical Chicago Black
Racist Sleazy Political Figures Democrats.
Just say NO to Obama and Obama!

Posted by: Sandy5274 | April 30, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

apparently both of them did not vote on the economic stimulus bill or the amendments, probably for different reasons, b/c they both felt it was not comprehensive enough and Senator Obama just decided not to cast a vote at all; neither of them apparently showing a profile in courage.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

lawyering you what kind of childish remark is that?


try and follow the argument. One it is not a solution, period. Can you understand that I have said that now at least 5 times.

Two an Obama poster said that US driving habits are increasing and that is the cause of rising gas prices. Rising US demand. One more time they said that since the US is in a recession that there is an INCREASE in US gas consumption. I would like to see evidence of that since US business is slowing and many US drivers are cutting down on their trips. Demand also has to do with increased demands in the Chinese and Indian economies which are not in a recession,have nothing to do with this discussion, but the point being made was that supposedly gas prices were going up because US businesses and drivers are driving up the demand for oil and therefore that demand will eat up any gas tax holiday. That is false on 2 basis one because your gas prices are more effected by fluctations in the dollar and speculators and second if prices will continue to go up as you speculate they will do so whether or not the 18 cents comes into play. Incidentally are you suggesting that 'US' demand is going up while we are in a recession b/c if that is true that would be historic.

Releasing strategic reserves is again only a temporary fix and usually only ads a few days more to the supply.
We all agree that all of this only helps at the margins and is temporary, but all of the other plans are truly long term and legitimate proposals that will likely take 5-10 years to offer relief, but once again all of the other proposals are long term proposals which won't even be given the time of day for consideration until january 21, 2009.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary giving people a few bucks for gas is the 21st century equal to "Let them eat cake!" She is completely out of touch with what real Americans are feeling.

Posted by: naples | April 30, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if we'll ever really know why the pastor is speaking up now, but to say the Clinton's are behind this as one poster did is silly. I think that this is going to haunt Obama, it will not go away for several reasons.
1) The pastor told the people over and over again that Obama says what he does because he it's the political thing to do. (thus letting the people know it is not the truth)
2) His staying in the church for 20 years and not commenting to the pastor that he does not agree with him. This would have been a great time to talk about bringing the races together not further apart. He missed that chance. Now he says he can do just that if elected president.
3) He lied when he said he heard no hate America sermons. His press and secret service people where with him and when the journalist called his campaign headquarters for a comment from the senator on his minister and his comments. He received no answer even though they knew he was going to write an article on it. But the next day he gave his race speech in Pa. (I think to save his presidency) Read this.
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_america_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html

4)By saying that the ministers' comments were fair game on Fox news he left himself open to have this debate about his pastor over and over again. That is all we will hear in the run up to November. We will loose again if he is our candidate.

Posted by: chacha1 | April 30, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman: The "economic stimulus package" was garbage. Giving $600 to everyone is an incredibly stupid waste of money, and I said exactly that when issue came up a few months ago. Obama didn't vote on that bill, but he probably would have supported it; every Democrat and most Republicans did. But it was still stupid.

Look, I just disagreed with my favored presidential candidate! Did I just blow your mind?

Posted by: Blarg | April 30, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm on your side, Leichtman, but you have lost me. What the heck are you talking about? The gas tax should be rolled back, I don't care if its for one day, but when you say that demand in the US has no effect on gas prices ... ay ay ay.

Posted by: deadender | April 30, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

mnteng, don't try to reason with him; just quit while your ahead. He doesn't listen, he will just ignore that you are right and try to pass off more Hillary rubbish about something totally unrelated.

He thinks as long as he keeps posting then he is still not wrong. No matter how many times you explain it to him, it won't help.

Good luck Leichtman, you apparently need it.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

Maybe I'm confused. Dave! said "The private sector has a 23 day inventory supply of gas (not oil) which is typical for this time of the year. There is, of course, the proposal to stop adding to the SPR by all candidates which would also add, very slightly, to supply." But I didn't think that made a lot of sense, since the small amount of oil we stockpile is miniscule compared to the worldwide supply, or even our consumption. I thought the candidates didn't want to add oil to the SPR because of the $120/bbl price tag.

Oh, and here's the link to the article on gas consumption.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0718533620080408?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

Posted by: mnteng | April 30, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you called it a short term solution in one of the posts above, stop trying to argue semantics when you have clearly been proven incorrect. Now you try to lawyer me, as if that is some kind of defense or agrument. You talk in many of your posts about how Hillary is connecting with voters over this issue? But if it isn't part of the solution than what is it? You have basically stated it isn't part of a solution, so then it is just pandering. I love that you point to the evidence you provided, and your right plenty of things impact gas prices. But let me get this straight--American consumption has no impact on gas prices? Is that your postulate? This isn't an "expert theory" I have provided, it is econ 101. You might have heard of a little thing called Supply and Demand? If as you talked about above, more Americans will be buying gas since the price will be so much more affordable,then the demand will grow. When the demand grows and the supply doesn't change...what happens Leichtman? The price goes back up. I am not the only one who has posted to this contention. And I also posted an article speaking to the ineffectiveness of the plan Hillary proposed. Others, actual expert's, have spoken in the past day that it will do nothing and may in fact raise gas prices, but "your expert theory" says no way. Even though your own theory says lots of things impact gas prices--uh ya think like maybe Consumption. And you try to compare the economic stimulus to the Gas Holiday. That is not meant to help you afford healthcare, it is suppose to help you stimulate the economy. The stimulus package isn't aimed as some kind of aid, they way you and Hillary are dreaming up this Gas Holiday to be. So, that is more rubbish you are sporting as logic.

Keeping trying Leichtman, perhaps eventually you will stumble upon an actual grain of original thought. A broken clock is right twice a day. Go back to Hillary's website and try to dig for more rubbish to pass off as logic, so far your 0 for forever.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Stop picking on me!

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Way to be open-minded, Leichy-poo. Do they give you a T-shirt or decoder ring or sth for being so willfully ignorant of the world around you? or is it hypnotic conditioning?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Yuan. Sorry to overload you with details about what all is involved in gas prices since it is easier for you to just demagogue the issue, claim driving habits are going up when they clearly aren't and that the value of the dollar actually effects what you are paying for gas and not the taxes you pay on that gallon of gas which you spin will happen, rather than fully understand everything involved in that issue.

bottom line its been beaten to death and since you are an Obama supporter you obviously you can not see both sides of the issue and can only see it see through the lense of your candidate.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, give it a rest. It's OK - the smart ones know I'm lying to them, but of those I still have the racists and those too lazy to put 2 and 2 together and realize that I WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE NINETIES. Even Bill, not so much.... the Cold War ended, and the Internet began. Hell, Chelsea could have run the country, and she was 12 at the time. What? Don't worry, the only people reading this now are those who would never vote for me anyway. Now come here and service me before I have to squawk some more.

I said NOW.

Posted by: Hillary | April 30, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"interesting when I posted that driving is going down with carpools and shorter trips
bonjedi yelled that can't be."

You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie to us. What you wrote was "oil prices don't seem much effected by US demands or driving patterns." Again, it's a free country and you can believe what you want, but I don't see how you're establishing any credibility for your candidate with nonsense like that.

Go ahead and post some more econ mumbo-jumbo to dig yourself out of your hole. Bottom line - you have no idea what any of the ideas you are cutting and pasting from Hillary hate blogs actually mean. Stick to the sidewalk salt and donuts if you are trying to attract voters.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

OK, I admit it. HC is a grasping, emasculating shrew.

(Why do you think Bill sought out Gennifer, Monica, et al?)

And yet I find her unlovely, calculating face strangely... thrilling.

Come, Wrinkled One, and squawk sweet nothings in my ear.

Ready on Day One? I'm ready NOW.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

interesting when I posted that driving is going down with carpools and shorter trips
bonjedi yelled that can't be.
and then mnteng said:
"I saw an article a couple of weeks ago predicting that gas usage this summer will drop this year for the first time in a while due to the high gas prices, credit crunch, etc. That suggests that a significant percentage of us will not be taking our annual summer road trips or vacations."

Less US demand and rising prices never she said that is crazy. I still think that it is the declining dollar that has more to do with oil prices then actual driving habits, and ask others here to disprove that.

the bottom line is that oil prices will rise and fall as will pump pricess, regardless of what happens to the energy taxwhich is a fixed cost), and that is a false argument to say that if gas taxes are cut by 18 cents they will be directly correlated to fluctuations in oil and pump prices, which includes refinery, shipping, state and federal taxes.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Ma, I'll take that meatloaf now. MAAAAAAA! THE MEATLOAF!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 30, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"I am sure if you have inside info about energy futures, the diection of the juan, and what the feds will do with the prime rate and the value of the dollar,"

More mumbo-jumbo, thrown out there to confuse the issue. What the hell does any of that have to do with the plan Clinton took from McCain?

btw, is the "juan" some new Latin American currency?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

"could actually end up raising prices", therefore offering either even less relief or no relief at all. She offers nothing to help stem gas prices for those above groups past the holiday.

1. Raising prices? Where is your evidence of that since Houston Energy publications I posted claim that have actual evidence that energy prices are effected by speculators and fluctations in the dollar based upon things like how the Feds decide what they will do with interest rates and how China values their yuan.

I am sure if you have inside info about energy futures, the diection of the juan, and what the feds will do with the prime rate and the value of the dollar, that Ben Beracki and CNBC would be thrilled to have you as an analyst or maybe a guest spot on this week's episode of Median.

If Opec is going to manipulate oil prices regardless then YOU EXPERT theory is bogus. If you are now claiming that oil prices have nothing to do with the value of the dollar, interest rate directions and what foreign governments do with their currency markets you simply are wrong.

2. She offers nothing to reduce prices beyond the holiday?

How would you have any idea about that. You and the rest of the Obama supporters claim that Obama's plan is the best.How would you know that. 1. have you and blarg actually sat down and read her plan and know all of its details? I would post it but it is very long and detailed and that would not be appropriate 2. Are you now setting yourselves up as energy experts if so what are your credentials?

You keep posting that someone has told you the gas tax holiday is a solution, where did you get that idea. Its a short term relief exactly like nancy Pelosi's economic stimulus package. Its short term and targeted and no one has claimed that $600 will cure cancer or end the recession.

Since that too was a short term stimulus relief why did Sen Obama support a $600 rebate. We could say the exact same thing about $600 costing $150 billion dollars. It won't pay for healthcare it won't pay for a house note you should tell your candidate that he was buying votes for $600. Both of those arguments are nonsense. Its targeted temporary relief period. You oppose, you don't need it, you don't want on it fine, how is that relevant. Lets just see what Indiana voters, truckers and farmers say about it next Tues.since they are the ones most effected, not you not me. If they come out in mass and say they reject it that will certainly be the end of it, but if they reject your premise you and your candidate just might want to reconsider unless you are willing to totally disregard the wishes of farmers and truckers across the country since hispanic and elderly voters now appear beyond your campaign's reach.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

mnteng - What does oil have to do with gasoline?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Dave!:

I think Krugman's initial premise is that our refineries are running at capacity during the summer months to cope with demand. If that is true, then the supply would seem to be more inelastic.

I saw an article a couple of weeks ago predicting that gas usage this summer will drop this year for the first time in a while due to the high gas prices, credit crunch, etc. That suggests that a significant percentage of us will not be taking our annual summer road trips or vacations.

The idea of stopping the addition to the SPR doesn't strike me as being a very effective way to deal with gas supply. What do we add, something like 70,000 bbl/day? If the candidates were talking about not adding to the SPR to avoid paying out the nose for oil, then that might make more sense to me (yes, I think the price of oil will go down in the future). But doing it to ease high gas prices doesn't seem very rational to me.

Posted by: mnteng | April 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

In his NYT column yesterday, Bob Hebert became the latest pundit to lob a slew of hyper-charged code words at Barack Obama:

"A candidate who stands haplessly by as his former spiritual guide roams the country dropping one divisive bomb after another is in very little danger of being seen by most voters as the next J.F.K. or L.B.J. . . . The apparent helplessness of the Obama campaign in the face of the Wright onslaught contributes to the growing perception of the candidate as weak, as someone who is unwilling or unable to fight aggressively on his own behalf."

Obviously, these weren't racial code words, but for an aspiring president they were code words of an even more damaging sort. Hapless . . . Helpless . . . Weak . . .
"Unable to fight aggressively"--they all add up to one inescapable conclusion: Barack Obama is a wimp.


that's what being a political wimp is all about--being incapable of firm, decisive, and resolute action when the situation calls for it.

Posted by: Slouching towards disaster. | April 30, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I never seen people get so excited about someone telling them something that they already know

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

One thing is readily apparent in the last few days' back and forth - whenever the issues are debated, the Clinton cadre is exposed as hitching its wagon to the bizarre ideology of the McCain campaign (who threw his ideals in the trash and started a run as a Bush clone).

Now it is much clearer why Wright, Rezko, flag pins, bowling, etc. have replaced substance as Clinton talking points. While she gets clobbered when it comes to displaying competence as a prospective Prez, Hillary can at least fight to a stalemate with sleaze and innuendo.

Obama's slogan: Yes we can!

Hillary's mantra: Four more years!

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

We are so frustrated by always losing. Now our hate-monger has been exposed for the poltroon he is. what is a devoted leftist hater to do? drindl, leads us.

your jackals

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | April 30, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,
I have to disagree with you on Obama having the best enery policy. No efforts to get US oil production increased, cap and trade (or as i call it "a regressive hidden pollution tax"), and the aforementioned high emphasis on ethanol and other bio-fuels. To be fair, McCain has a cap and trade proposal too.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

The health plan proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would, by design, replace employer-based health insurance with individual-market insurance--a concern for people with chronic disease. Employers do not charge workers or their families different premiums based on their age, gender, health status, or health history. They also offer equal benefits and choices of plans. The individual market, however, plays by different rules. Individual insurers in most states can exclude people with pre-existing conditions directly by denying them coverage or indirectly by charging them exorbitant premiums.1

This could be remedied with stronger rules for insurers--but the McCain plan moves in the opposite direction. It would allow insurers to play by the rules in any state--including the one that has the least protection for people with chronic diseases.

According to an analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 56 million non-elderly adults with employer-sponsor health insurance have at least one of 12 chronic illnesses.2

This does not count chronically ill children with employer coverage who would also be at risk of losing coverage under the McCain plan. Employers insure 62 percent of all adults with chronic illness, including (note: numbers add to more than 56 million because some individuals have multiple diseases):

21.2 million with hypertension
18.5 million with arthritis
7.8 million with asthma
6.3 million with diabetes
5.5 million with cancer
4.5 million who experience disruptive anxiety or depression
If these Americans were to lose health coverage through employers, they might not be able to regain it. Research has shown that over 70 percent of individuals in poor health found it very difficult or impossible to find affordable, individual-market coverage.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

F**k all of you. If you are too dumb not to realize that gasoline grows on trees and Hillary should be named Queen Bizzatch For Life, then you don't deserve her.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"bonjedi claims that hedging, dollar fluctations and the war have nothing to do with rising gas prices"

One, you're talking out of your bum. You haven't the foggiest idea what hedging and dollar fluctuations are, let alone how they impact the price of a tank of gas.

Two, what I pointed out was the insanity of the statement that American supply and demand has nothing to do with the price of gas. To take your "logic" to its natural course, if over the next year all American motor-vehicles were switched to solar-powered ones, does your "theory" hold that the price of a gallon of gasoline would be what it is today? 50% of all cars? 25% of cars? Cars belonging to voters Hillary is pandering to in her death march?

While you flip through your hate blogs looking for an answer, we'll be waiting.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Via TAPPED, John McCain's foreign policy spokesman Randy Scheunemann recently gave an interview to Radio Free Europe about the growing tension between Russia and Georgia. Scheunemann took a hard line against Russia's "undermining of Georgian sovereignty" by moving to establish direct ties with breakaway regions of Georgia.

Interestingly, neither Scheunemann nor the interviewer mentioned that Randy Scheunemann used to be employed as a lobbyist for the Georgian government. That's right, the person who's giving John McCain advice on Russia and Georgia was "registered with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent working on behalf of the government of Georgia."

Scheunemann is a longtime neoconservative activist and lobbyist. In addition to working for the government of Georgia, Scheunemann was was the director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a neocon front group spun off from the Project for the New American Century (where Scheunemann also works as a foreign policy and national security analyst) which lobbied for the invasion of Iraq. Scheunemann's firm, Scheunemann and Associates, also lobbied for the National Rifle Association between 1999 and 2002.

Of course, Scheunemann is only one of the many former lobbyists helping to drive the Straight Talk Express. In fact, as Media Matters reported, "McCain has more current and former lobbyists working on his campaign staff than any other candidate in the 2008 presidential election."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Now Bill O'Reilly is claiming we didn't invade Iraq. I guess it's all a mass hallucinatiion.

O'Reilly's claim is almost as unbelievable as Wolfowitz's statement earlier this week that the U.S. "occupation [of Iraq] ended in June of 2004."

Be sure and vote for John McCain and more neocon loonytunes.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Once again where has anyone stated it is the 'solution'. That was your slanted word certainly not mine in fact i went out of my way to post it is only a short term relief at the pump that will help truckers, farmers and perhaps ease inflationary prices on exploding food costs, but once again it is you using the word solution for obvious partisan purposes.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 3:27 PM

Leichtman, I posed three questions to you above, none of which you can answer about Hillary's plan. How is the Gas Holiday going to help any of those groups you have named? I and others have posted how the Gas Holiday will not bring any relief to these parties at the pump. Not short term, or long term. So, how is that short term relief as you call it? You just ignore the economic and financial data that is relatvent to the situation. We have been over how suspending the Gas Tax will save on average $30. We have also discussed how suspending the Tax could actually end up raising prices, therefore offering either even less relief or no relief at all. She offers nothing to help stem gas prices for those above groups past the holiday. So, come this September everything is still too pricey for the groups you named above and their circumstances don't change. So, this proposal (or whatever you want to call it) ends up netting the average American nothing. A lot of sound and fury signifiying nothing. You even alluded to her pandering, stating "we will see what Indiana voters say". Not that the plan is good for them, or America, simply if they vote for it it must be right. If you can actually refute any of that, with reasonable logic, then we have something to discuss.

As I said above, I think raising taxes on the Oil industry is silly. I don't support that policy. I dislike the fact that Obama supports that policy, so it doesn't matter to me when he decided on the idea; I wish he would forget it. And yes, I believe if the Gas Holiday came to a vote this summer it would fail. It is nothing more than pandering for votes and as I outlined above you have provided nothing to support the contrary.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It's 'proud2baracist' that always pastes from weekly standard.

she apparently just can't stop thinking about the Scary Black Man of God.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

So, there are 3 main blame-themes here...
the media is to blame, the Clinton campaign set it up and are to blame, OR the Obama campaign set it up and are to blame. Hmmmm.

How about this... BO has had political aspirations for a long time. He became a member of a well known African American church in Chicago to be connected to that community and further his aspirations. In this regard Rev. Wright was an asset, hence his participation for 20 years.

Now BO wants to be President. In his inexperience does not see the train wreck that is Wright approaching. Tries to be nice to his "uncle" while appeasing the rest of us until said uncle, furious at being "politicized" by dear nephew Obama, comes out in full force attack mode with not a care for said nephew... because Wright is now crystal clear that BO is a part of the very political system(USA) he hates AND accuses of creating the AIDS epidemic among other things.

Wright is now no longer an asset and will not play nice so BO now needs to sever the "mentoring".

Folks, it's politics. Pure unadulterated politics. And blame? How about just responsibility. Obama and only Obama is responsible for his "strategies" & choices for the last 20 years on the road to now.

Stop the BLAME-GAME. It's a waste of time and energy. I will not pile on.

I support Senator Hillary Clinton for the 44th Presidency of the United States of America, however, it is with great sadness that I watch the discouragement and disillusionment of Senator Obama at the abandonment and disrespect of a one-time honored pastor. Let's get back to business.

What does our country with all of it's diversity need now, and who can best provide us with thoughtful solutions to our challenges? I know we all have our opinions on this. We are expressing them at the ballot box so let the process continue. And let's start talking about the candidates PLANS and how to get them accomplished. We need a democrat in the White House without a doubt. There is still lot's to do to get this done.

Is there anyone else out there besides Hillary Clinton who is remembering that we are all in this together and will need to VOTE together in November... bitter pill or not.

Posted by: hummingbirdv | April 30, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

mnteng - "if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount."

It is highly arguable which is more inelastic - supply or demand of gas. Krugmans assumption, apparently, is that supply is but the continued use of gas by Americans over the last several months while prices have skyrocketed makes this a debatable point. The private sector has a 23 day inventory supply of gas (not oil) which is typical for this time of the year. There is, of course, the proposal to stop adding to the SPR by all candidates which would also add, very slightly, to supply. Now it is true that in summer, consumers use gas for recreation which is where they could cut back demand but that remains to be seen.

Posted by: Dave! | April 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Good thing Mommy knocks before entering my basement "office" with my lunch. She might catch me doing naughty things while I look at pictures of Ann Coulter.

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so President Bill clinton got Nafta passed... when there was a Republicen conress, remember? But how has that law been tweaked since, and by whom? The Republican congress, right? Right. Many new laws need tweaking to get the bugs out, but it does depend WHO gets the bugs out, right? And it seems clear to me that it was the Republican congress... who put more bugs in, not took any out. So don't blame President Clinton for having the foresight that globalization was going to take place whether we like it or not. Blame the Republican congress for turning Nafta into a free-for-big-money game. He didn't do that. The Bushies DID do it.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Boy did Mommy make me a nice tuna fish sandwich today! Thanks Mommy!

Posted by: kingofzouk | April 30, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"trying to pass this idea off as a solution is ludicrous. Raising Taxes on oil companies isn't going to bring the price of gas down. And I know full well Obama supports the same initiative."


Once again where has anyone stated it is the 'solution'. That was your slanted word certainly not mine in fact i went out of my way to post it is only a short term relief at the pump that will help truckers, farmers and perhaps ease inflationary prices on exploding food costs, but once again it is you using the word solution for obvious partisan purposes.


I have posed 2 questions that I asked you to research. As you know Harry Reid unsucessfully pushed a Windfall Profits tax in March 2006. he desperately looked for supporters and only a handful of Ds offered to help. Very few Dems joined him because it was a brave proactive move to take on the oil industry. Its great he now spend million on Indiana and N Carolina to claim he opposes rising oil prices but where was he when was needed to actually do something about it?
HC was by Reid's side 2 years before Indiana. Since you claim to know Obama's positions then please tell us if he enthusiastically supported Harry Reid 2 years ago when he needed help to pass a Windfall Profits tax. Its great if he now has joined Harry Reid and HC call for a Windfall Profits tax NOW but he is once again a day late and a dollar short.

My quesrry was what you think a D Senate would do if this proposal comes to a vote this summer? I have no idea, but I doubt you will find more than a handful of Ds who would vote no. It is mere speculation but do you doubt that McCain will not push for that vote this summer if Obama is the nominee?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Ed Morrissey notes an oddity in the Washington Post's water-carrying editorial that lauded Barack Obama's most demonstrative denunciation of Jeremiah Wright to date:


"But Mr. Obama is right when he says that his entire career is antithetical to the divisiveness of the Rev. Wright's comments."


To which I can only respond, "What career?"

Coming out of Harvard Law School in 1991, one would have expected young Barack Obama to set the world on fire. He was editor-in-chief of the Law Review, graduated magna cum laude, even penned a well-received memoir soon after his graduation.

And yet for a dozen years after law school, Obama toiled away in obscurity as a community organizer, a lawyer at a small firm that had the infamous Rezko as a client, and as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. This career path famously forced him and his wife to have to stretch to pay back their student loans.

Much of this was of course laudable on Obama's part, passing up the big bucks to better serve humanity. But he didn't have a career that engaged in policy issues. He was an obscure figure whose efforts to forward his obvious political ambitions were uniformly thwarted until his successful run for senator in 2004.

Besides, as Morrissey notes, if Obama's "entire career" really has been "antithetical to the divisiveness of Rev. Wright's comments," it would have been swell if the Post had provided an example or two to support such a sweeping assertion.

Against the Post's unsupported hyperbole, there stands the formulation "20 years and $40,000." For 20 years, Obama worshipped at Jeremiah Wright's church. And yet Obama's campaign would have us believe that he only became aware that Wright is a moral cretin on Monday.

Perhaps even more bothersome is the $40,000 + in donations the Obamas gave to Wright's church in 2005 and 2006. Given Michelle Obama's repeated whining about the precarious state of the Obamas' finances, we can assume they didn't demonstrate such largesse without first giving the matter serious consideration.

It's a measure of how problematic the Reverend Wright situation will remain for Obama that his champions in the media have resorted to ludicrous exaggeration in a vain attempt to make it go away. They'd be better off standing by their tried and true (though still ineffective) method of shrieking "Distraction!!"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6692

Posted by: Barack Obama's Brilliant Career | April 30, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

apparently bonjedi you have developed expertise in cutting but not posting.

Are you suggesting that American driving have actually gone Up in the US? That is contrary to what energy experts are saying who have recorded LESS Us driving and more carpooling, oy those stubborn facts.


This is what energy experts are actually saying since bonjedi claims that hedging, dollar fluctations and the war have nothing to do with rising gas prices, and she is so certain that Americans are driving more:

"Instead, many observers blame speculative traders for bidding up the price as a hedge against inflation and as protection from the sinking U.S. dollar. Some see that as evidence of a bubble."

notice experts claim the link is to speculators and a sinking dollar and not to what you incorrectly claim is RISING US driving patterns.

interesting that your cutting and pasting taught you how to clip posts but not the pasting part of the whole post that said:

"speculators,demands by the Chinese, the devaluatioin of the dollar which converts what we pay for a barrel of crude and the war" are all causing oil prices to spike.

nice try learn how to read.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THE CURRENT SCENARIO HAS BEEN PURPOSELY CONJURED BY BOTH WRIGHT AND OBAMA. WITH THE SUDDEN ERUPTION OF PASTOR WRIGHTS VITRIOLIC REMARKS TO DERAIL OBAMA'S ELECTION IS MERELY A DEVIOUS AND CLEVERLY ORCHESTRATED PLOY BY BOTH PARTIES TO BRING ABOUT A WAVE OF SYMPATHY AND MORE VOTERS OUT FOR OBAMA. THIS IS ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION WHICH COULD EITHER BE ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS RIDICULOUS OR RIGHT ON TARGET. HOW IT CONTINUES TO PLAY OUT IN THE WEEKS TO COME WILL EITHER PROVE I'M A CERTIFIED IDIOT OR A PROGNOSTICATER. AS FOR THE ELECTION ITSELF I AM STILL NEUTRAL, AND JUST STATING AN OPINION THAT COULD EASILY BE DISMISSED AS FOOLISH OR BE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION THAT SOMETHING MAY BE ROTTEN IN DENMARK.

Posted by: Barney S/April 30, 2 008, 11:59 | April 30, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"After all, it takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. "

Who is filling their tanks with ethanol? It's mostly used as an additive.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

What exactly does any of this have to do with why the Gas Holiday is a good idea?"

Plenty.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 2:19 PM

No Leichtman it doesn't. Apples to Oranges again. I have not said she doesn't have a long term plan, simply that trying to pass this idea off as a solution is ludicrous. Raising Taxes on oil companies isn't going to bring the price of gas down. And I know full well Obama supports the same initiative.

Raising Taxes on Oil companies is how Hillary proposed to pay for her pandering, not how to lower gas prices. Again, if you stopped reading Hillary's website for two minutes to go do some actual research you would stop trying to pass off the illogical Gas Holiday as part of her "energy policy". You say every Dem will vote for this....where is your proof? That is a bold statement, but as usual you are just shooting from the hip. There is not one ounce of truth to that statement.

You should go back and re-read what I and others have said about the Gas Holiday. I don't believe the topic can be outlined any better than what is posted above.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"actually oil prices don't seem much effected by US demands or driving patterns."

Oy. Leichtman, are you for real or is this some stab at performance art? What about donut prices? This is the sort of economic expertise you expect from the campaign that has spent itself into a financial hole.

Please tell us which Hillary hateblog is feeding you this line. I want to read about how the universe revolves around the Earth.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I ummm.....just want to say.....(pause).........that I really just............ummm...........make this up as........I umm.........................like go along.........so cut me some slack please. you did it all last year, why change now? I am like...........ummm...........ready to be sworn in already so can you like umm..........................hurry up and get to it..................before ummm....................like anyone else finds out the umm..........................................truth about me.

Posted by: snObama | April 30, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chris,
I remember a lot of media praise for Obama's so called Gettysburg respose, so why was such an "eloquent speech" now reversed? Obama is the pathological liar. He even spoke the untruth about Wright's growing up where he is compared to the under privileged young blacks of the 60,s when Wright was an intelligent young man, educated in one of the best high schools (the Central Hi in Germantown) PA, his father, a minister and his mother a high school teacher, and vice principal of a girl's high school. Obama grabbed his story out of the blue. So, maybe I can list more lies. This man is a farce, he is hollow and so little (other than Rev. wright) to show. And now, a little bit later tries so hard "to be outraged" and denounces his pastor. And he claims not to know what the pastor preaches? Who is this guy who wants to become president of the US? How could the media have plugged him so much and bashed Hillary, be stupid and not looked at the man before. And the press waited to bring the pastor relationship umtil they were sure they had enough blind supporters behind him? And the so called young educated people bragged that they, the intelligent were looking for change, could be so gullible and easily blindly led to follow this unknown man? who is this man and what is he made of. And they said "experience did not matter?" I am intelligent, educated, and old, Once upon a time I worked hard and I learned to disagree, but I do not hate. Chris, I do not call people names, but I just hope that you people in the press think harder. And Chris "hardball" Matthews seemed like he never missed a day from day one to bash Hillary and even bring up Bill's "sin" as baggage, to say the least. And he calls Obama "charismatic", an adjective I would never use. I'ld call him a salesman, who will say anything.( to get a vote). thanks.

Posted by: lady m | April 30, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama obviously doesn't agree with Reverend Wright. Obama simply believes Wright clings to religion due to his bitter feelings from bad experiences with racism. Obama, on the other hand, clings to religion to try and garner a few votes.

Posted by: reason | April 30, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama obviously doesn't agree with Reverend Wright. Obama simply believes Wright clings to religion due to his bitter feelings from bad experiences with racism. Obama, on the other hand, clings to religion to try and garner a few votes.

Posted by: reason | April 30, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I thought that Michelle Obama had become less prominent on the campaign trail, but on Friday she spoke at a rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana. C-SPAN broadcst the speech last night. It seemed to go on forever, but the seeming length was proportional to the pain inflicted by listening to it.

By contrast with Barack Obama, Michelle Obama doesn't know the words and won't learn the music of American politics. She therefore does not wear well.

While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve.

In her Fort Wayne speech she expanded on the condescending political sociology that Barack Obama preached at his closed-door fundraiser with the San Francisco Democrats.

Given the modesty of her nd her husband's family backgrounds, Mrs. Obama denied that she or her husband are elitists. Yet her political sociology is the mother's milk of those such as the San Francisco Democrats to whom Barack Obama preached.

Apparently Mrs. Obama believes that only those born to wealth are capable of looking down their noses at their fellow citizens. In her case the proposition is self-refuting.


Barack wasn't born with "silver spoons" in his mouth, she said. And nobody knows the trouble they've seen.

The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at Princeton and her law school education at Harvard remains a motif of her stump speech.

No one is granted a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.

Mrs. Obama omitted her warning to the Los Angeles disciples from her current iteration of the gospel she preached in Indiana:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."


As long as Senator Obama won't require us to listen to the missus, I might be willing to settle for the compulsory mental readjustment.



Posted by: http://www.looktruenorth.com/elections/presidential-race/114-Presidential%20Race/2828-she-doe | April 30, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Can I rephrase, my poll numbers seem to be dropping?

I am so sophisticated, it takes months to decipher what I really mean. Can I get sworn in before I have to explain anything?

Posted by: snObama | April 30, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Please allow me to remain the most inane poster on this blog. i promise to post only dimwit insults and one line unfunny jokes.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | April 30, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

"it seems that most politicians from both parties support ethanol, because it's a good way to suck up to farmers and appear to do something good for the environment"

John McCain is against corn subsidies, and said so during the Iowa caucuses. He's the only one with the guts to tell it like it is, despite the political fallout.

That's the kind of leadership this country needs.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Dave!, as an Obama supporter, I agree with you. Ethanol is a terrible idea in terms of the environment, economics, and morality. I wish that Obama didn't support it. But it seems that most politicians from both parties support ethanol, because it's a good way to suck up to farmers and appear to do something good for the environment. Obama's energy plan is by far the best of the three candidates', but his ethanol support is its big weak spot.

Posted by: Blarg | April 30, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"What exactly does any of this have to do with why the Gas Holiday is a good idea?"

Plenty. All day long you have posted incorrectly that HC does not have a long term energy plan and is only pandering whort term, which is utter nonsense. She thought through our energy crisis and offered a plan to resolve it 2 years ago. Since you claim that her position is purely political then I can ask you the exact same question. Where was Sen Obama's energy policy 2 years ago when Harry Reid begged Dems to join him in taking on the energy industry. Seems like he may be a recent convert now that he is running for Pres.

Additionally I will ask you how many Dems you think would vote against this proposal in the US Senate if it should come to a vote this summer. My guess: you won't find a D(except maybe Sen Obama) who would vote against it if they plan on getting re-elected in Nov. And what is your answer, that Sen Obama would certainly vote no?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi - "That would be a good one for Hillary to propose. Now she can throw under the bus all those Iowa voters so crucial to her third place finish there."

"Honest politics" would say that Obama should be suggesting this. After all, it takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol since corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Current subsidies for ethanol run $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon. That does not include the handout to corn farmers. Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. And which farmer is the leading producer of ethanol? Mr. Archer Daniels Midland.

But ethanol is a large part of Obama's long term solution. So basically, part of his long term solution will help to starve people around the world, drive up food and fuel prices for us, and waste energy. Given that, I'd take my measley Gas Tax Holiday.

Posted by: Dave! | April 30, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

But note jnoel she also on April 6, 2006 gave a very detailed considered to be a wonkish speech about long term energy policies in response to Harry Reid's efforts to get a Windfall Profits Tax passed in the US Senate.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:48 PM

What exactly does any of this have to do with why the Gas Holiday is a good idea?

And that is the point, your candidate is trying to propose a non-solution and pass it off as an accomplishment to further her own political gain. Don't try to brush it off as: that is how the game is played. This is exactly what Obama is talking about when he says "politics as usual". Hillary is promoting something that will produce zero results for the sole purpose of garnering more votes. The Gas Holiday isn't what is best for America, it is what's best for Hillary Clinton.

I encourage you to do some research on what economists and other financial analysts have said the results would be of the Gas Holiday.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Jeremiah Wright is not going anywhere.

He is a newly retired geezer with the national spotlight on him; these are his lifetime victory laps.

Can his parishioner and spiritual son, Barack Obama, go away from him? Obama had the chance to cut the cord when Hurricane Wright first blew in March, but, while criticizing certain of Wright's views, he said he could no more disown him than he could disown his white grandmother.

Wright is Obama's family, and more. Obama needed Wright when he was a young community organizer and nascent pol to give him street cred; he needed him, at a deeper level, to replace his deadbeat Kenyan father and his hippie-screwball white mother.

Most people say, at one time or another, with gratitude or resignation, you can't choose your parents. Obama chose this parent.

Posted by: the politics of hope | April 30, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

JNoel:

To add a bit to your explanation to Dave! (from Paul Krugman's blog) ...

"Why doesn't cutting the gas tax this summer make sense? It's Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.

Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that. So it's Econ 101: the tax cut really goes to the oil companies.

The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it's pointless, not evil. But it is pointless, and disappointing."

Posted by: mnteng | April 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

actually oil prices don't seem much effected by US demands or driving patterns.If anything with the slow down of the economy and most drivers reducing their driving patterns, prices have gone up. Why: speculators,demands by the Chinese, the devaluatioin of the dollar which converts what we pay for a barrel of crude and the war. To claim that a reduction in the tax means higher pump prices is patently ridiculous and I doubt you have an oz of empirical evidence to support that theory just mere speculation. If you oppose it for political reasons that is fine just don't act like you know exactly how energy traders speculate I doubt even they understand what drives their madness.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The reverend's worldview is an intoxicated mix of despair and narcissism: White America is corrupt and all-powerful, and can only be shaken by an endless chorus of complaint, led by Afrocentric divines.

There might be some Christianity mixed up in all this detritus, and someone might even find salvation in it. But such a disciple will have trouble persuading the electorate to make him president.

Posted by: the Editors | April 30, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Cliffhanger
Wright and political wrongs.

BY Peter Wehner

The extraordinary public feud between Senator Barack Obama and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. would be an enormous threat to any candidate running for president, but it is particularly dangerous to Obama.

The reason is twofold. Sen. Obama, because he is such a new figure on the American political scene, is largely undefined. People certainly have impressions of him, but they are tentative and certainly not deep or enduring.

Like hot wax, people's judgment about Obama can be easily molded and reshaped. New information and new revelations can radically alter people's impressions of him.


Secondly, Obama's campaign has been far less about his ideas than it has been about him. This separates Obama from political figures like Ronald Reagan. Reagan was also a very attractive personality but his candidacy was, at its core, based on his political philosophy and a set of (conservative) ideas.

Obama, as much as any national politician I can recall, has made his presidential candidacy personality-based.

Its success depends on the public's sense of who he is -- and that puts added importance on the public having confidence in Obama's character and values, his judgment and his integrity.

Many of us were attracted to Obama precisely because of how he came across: reasonable, thoughtful, measured, a person who was attempting to transcend racial divisions. We found his liberalism troubling -- but we found him to be personally impressive.

When the Wright story broke, it raised serious questions about whether what Obama was projecting to the public was consistent with his life.

It was jarring to think that the Obama of the 2008 campaign -- who presented himself as a unique, unifying figure in American politics -- could for 20 years attend church and develop a close personal relationship with a minister of hate and division and bigotry.

The questions we had are beginning to answer themselves, and in a way that could be politically lethal for Obama.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmRjZjU5MTZkN2FjYzNlZDJmODMyODY0YTAxMjlmYTE=

Posted by: Wright was “like family to me.” | April 30, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Anon @ 1:17P

You can add Friedman to that list ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?hp

Posted by: mnteng | April 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I have not heard the analysis of how the Gas Tax Holiday would do this (drive prices higher).
Posted by: Dave! | April 30, 2008 1:39 PM

The logic is, the reason to suspend the tax is so that Americans can take advantage (which means drive more or further). If Americans take advantage, then the possibility exists that demand would increase. If demand increases than so does the price. Which would basically wipe out anything gained by suspending the tax.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

And that is exactly why no matter what I won't vote for her.

that is fine you know my sentiments as well.

But note jnoel she also on April 6, 2006 gave a very detailed considered to be a wonkish speech about long term energy policies in response to Harry Reid's efforts to get a Windfall Profits Tax passed in the US Senate.
Exactly where did your candidate stand in 2006 when gas was $2/gallon and Sen Reid implored Dems to join him taking on the oil industry? Its clear where HC stood 2 years before campaigning in Indiana can your campaign claim the same?

and as to there also being a political component, get over it. Its a Presidential campaign it not bean bag and if your side doesn't think that your candidate is doing absolutely everything he can politically to win, then you naively believe his confrontation with Rev Wight yesterday was anything more than a political stunt made exactly a week before a very important primary where his pollsters and contributors were imploring him to stop the political bleeding. But since it is was done by Obama I am sure you believe that there was absolutely nothing political about that tact. I am not challenging his right to do so, but to claim it was nonpolitical is patently ridiculous.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The most damaging thing Rev. Jeremiah Wright said at the National Press Club on Monday had nothing to do with God damning America, or AIDS, or chickens coming home to roost. It had to do with whether Barack Obama is telling the American people the truth about himself.

"Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls," Wright told the Press Club. "Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. . . . I do what pastors do. [Obama] does what politicians do."

A few days earlier, in an interview with Moyers, Wright said Obama, in his Philadelphia speech attempting to calm the controversy created by Wright's sermons, had said "what he has to say as a politician."

The most damaging thing Wright could ever say is that he knows, based on his long personal relationship with Obama, that Obama agrees with him but can't say so publicly for political reasons.

It is not clear whether Obama has fully renounced what he said about Wright in Philadelphia. In that speech, Obama said, "I can no more disown [Wright] than I can disown the black community."

Is Obama disowning Wright now, or not? He wasn't asked that specific question in North Carolina Tuesday, but he will need to have an answer in the future.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGZhZGQ2Mzc3NDVmMzAxNmU1MjgzODk2MWFjODg1ZjY=

Posted by: For Obama, the Danger From Wright Isn’t Over | April 30, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"My advice would be to pay for it by eliminiating the Ethanol subsidy."

That would be a good one for Hillary to propose. Now she can throw under the bus all those Iowa voters so crucial to her third place finish there.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Dissent is a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea (eg. a government's policies) or an entity (eg. an individual or political party which supports such policies). The term's antonyms include agreement, consensus (when all or nearly all parties agree on something) and consent (when one party agrees to a proposition made by another).
Dissent may be expressed in many ways. In some political systems, dissent may be formally expressed by way of opposition politics, while politically repressive regimes may prohibit any form of dissent, leading to suppression of dissent and the encouragement of social or political activism. Individuals who do not conform or support the policies of certain states may be described as "dissidents," or in extreme cases, "enemies of the state".
Several thinkers have argued that a healthy society needs not only to protect, but also to encourage dissent.
--Wiki

Posted by: Jeff Smith | April 30, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

This gas idea is good for Indiana voters and Hillary. They get an extra $20.00 a month, and she gets their votes. Is that your point, Lie-chtman?

Posted by: Unity '08 | April 30, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

JNoel002 - "It does virtually nothing for the average consumer, other than perhaps drive gas prices higher."

I have not heard the analysis of how the Gas Tax Holiday would do this (drive prices higher). I guess further applying this logic you could argue that raising the gas tax would do nothing or even lower gas prices? If the argument is that taxes on gas have virtually no impact of the price the consumer pays (or somehow the opposite affect), it's a shocker that no politician has proposed this solution.

McCain never said this was his solution to the long term problem. It is temporary relief and designed as such. My advice would be to pay for it by eliminiating the Ethanol subsidy.

Posted by: Dave! | April 30, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"My guess is that if Obama was pushing this proposal we would hear all his supporters today jumping up and down and claiming how brilliant he is."

That's not a guess. It's a wish, like "I wish that Obama and his supporters would quit pointing out what a stupid idea this is and say how brilliant it is."

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh and Leichtman, by the way, with that $30 bucks Hillary sent a letter "Vote for me."

Lets see what the Indiana voters think,
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:26 PM
That is exactly what Hillary wants you to think. Nevermind the policy she is proposing doesn't do anything, if people will vote for me because of it it must be right. That comment showed exactly how Hillary will act if she became President. If the voters like it, then thats what we will do. You just said, she will do and promote anything to get elected. And that is exactly why no matter what I won't vote for her.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

jnoel you and bonjedi can turn up your nose at $100 but again that is elitist.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:26 PM

On the contrary Leichtman, trying to tell people in need "here's $30 bucks that should solve all your problems" is elitist. It is that kind of lack of thought and reason that must have inspired Hillary's plan. Bravo!

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I have watched the interview with Bill Moyer and Rev Wright's speeches on the National Press club and NAACP, I have not noticed any significant change in his rhetoric ,I don't know why sen. Obama considered this as unacceptable, as he has been listening to this kind of radical talk for years. Apparently what Obama has said is a deviation of his famous speech on race in Philly which was considered to be a great speech by many people. In that speech, he stated that he would never disown his long time pastor as he would not do to the black community.

Posted by: austin | April 30, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

jnoel you and bonjedi can turn up your nose at $100 but again that is elitist. No one has suggested its a long term fix or that it will cure AIDS or end childhood poverty as you so ridiculously imply that was suggested. It may have a secondary effect of stopping, slowing or reversing run away inflationary food prices. Since this is a campaign lets see how real voters react. I recall the beloved Paul Tsongas calling Bill a pander bear in Fla shortly before his campaign was wiped out in the 1992 Fla primary. My guess is that if Obama was pushing this proposal we would hear all his supporters today jumping up and down and claiming how brilliant he is. Lets see what the Indiana voters think, my guess it was a strategic mistake by Obama lets see if they just agree with you and say they don't need any stinkin gas rebate.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

To my prospective voters, the plan John McCain and I came up with will put ten dollars a month in your pockets. That's four tallboys!

To my friends and contributors in big oil, the plan your loyal servants McCain and I came up with will put millions in your bank accounts. That's a dozen refineries you can buy and close down!

Posted by: Hillary Clinton | April 30, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"She has long term, intermediate and short term plans for energy policies.Your guy says just wait 5-10 years and pray that works."

Completely wrong, and the glibness bespeaks how little you actually know.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting to actually read the Rev. Wright's speeches. I don't find them offensive. They certainly command my attention as a white person. I find them to be within the "prophetic voice"--and anyone with a knowledge of Biblical history would know that prophets said what they were called to say, regardless of the popularity of their words.

If prophets mouthed only popular words, what would be the point of their office? I find the opportunity to hear a different voice refreshing and challenging.

As for Obama, he should have stuck by his man. Better to lose the world and gain your soul. Someday integrity will again be popular; why not try it?

Posted by: Jeff Smith | April 30, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."

The Reuters article cites Bush's former chariman of the Council of Economics advisors, economics professors, think tank wonks and Paul Krugman, all agreeing that the proposal sucks eggs. When you have Krugman and former Bush officials agreeing on something, it must truly be bad.

Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

"You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh my, some of the comments are discouraging, a lot of ranting and raving and a good deal of it just hateful nonsense.
The Rev. Wright isn't even worth wasting the space. Is there any one of you who hasn't been or known someone who's been deceived and betrayed by a friend or relative? Obama is a victim in all this. Betrayal hurts. Let's show a little humanity here. Too bad the media can't seem to manage it so much of the time.

Posted by: D. Smith | April 30, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

tell that to truckers, farmers and single mom's struggling to pay their bills.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 12:12 PM

You still ignore the fact that if these people are on the edge of bankruptcy what are they supposed to do after the holiday is over? You nor your candidate explain. You also ignore the fact that you are saving these people less than $100 in the 3 months the holiday is proposed to last. Neither you or your candidate show how this will actual save families on the brink. You are also ignoring the fact that if we lower gas prices, and therefore encourage consumers to drive more, prices will rise. But why should you look at financial and economic data, when the polls show this could swing a couple of votes your way? The proposal makes no sense, it doesn't help anyone (except maybe Hillary Clinton). Get a Helmet because this proposal isn't a solution. You can spin this "idea" with Hillary speak all you like it isn't going to change the hard economic facts that all say it is a meaningless attempt to try to "connect" with voters. Hillary is telling voters ignore what you know to be true, lets have a holiday! Check out the NY Times story Leichtman. Obama isn't the only one who thinks Clinton and McCain are full of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?bl&ex=1209614400&en=336577f1089edce7&ei=5087%0A

Answer some questions, and stop lying about how it will help this person, or that on guy you talked with yesterday. You apparently believe everything your candidate tells you. Typical, no independent or original thought of your own.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

All - It was made plain to Leichtman yesterday in common English why the Clinton/McCain gas tax proposal was a turkey, and it didn't sink in. The arguments made today are correct but still too sophisticated for him.

You could point out what the proposal is - a hare-brained, short-sighted scheme made less with the consumer's pocketbook in mind than as a vote-grabbing ploy. But Leichtman responds best to fruit placed on the lowest hanging branch, so that won't work, either.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

duh do you just mimick the Axelrod talking points or do you try and come up with an original though?

Leichtman. Simple... the oil companies will just increase prices to offset their lost revenue from the Windfall tax. Duh.

Actually its OPEC and the oil cartels that set the benchmark for oil prices each day, there are oil traders next to my office who do that every day.If you don't like OPEC or energy traders then agree with HC's plan of having a new justice dept investigating their practices.

If there is price gouging truth as you rant against then why would you oppose HC's plan to investigate these practices.


So today's message from Obama supporters is:

NO WE CAN'T.

Another part of her plan is release of part of the Strategic Reserves. She has long term, intermediate and short term plans for energy policies.Your guy says just wait 5-10 years and pray that works.

And as for blarg saying only 5% of the troops being withdrawn she has said that she will start withdrawing 2 divisions a month starting in March 2009. You can simply make up stuff saying otherwise blarg and post it here as fact,if that makes you feel better.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

You can be black in this country, but you can't be angry.

That would be ungrateful -- after all we've done for you.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"Proud' is displaying the usual rightwing brain damage. 'his relgion would have been questioned' --

you mean Christianity?

I have never seen the news media show such disrespect and demonization for any pastor, no matter how loony or hateful. And there are plenty of those.

One can only conclude that this is because he is black. A scary black man.

Posted by: Jack | April 30, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

You know, I don't want to be unfair to Obama, and I do realize that he has no control over what Wright says, but when Obama's team says "Wright doesn't speak for us" and argues that in his latest speech Obama did an adequate job of "distancing himself" from Wright, they miss the point.

Many of us have some skepticism or even doubts about Obama's sincerity. Those doubts have been on the creep for a long time now. The "bitter" remark about working class whites "clinging" to religion, the earlier news pieces about Wright, Michelle Obama's unpatriotic remarks. Now, these latest developments, the latest remarks from Wright, freshen those doubts about Obama's sincerity, and with many of us probably hasten their march.

I think it is fair to say that the question on the minds of many white working class folks (like myself) when we step into the voting booth is simply "does Obama really intend to help people like me once he gets into office, or not?"

Obama went to this guy's church for twenty years. He listened to this guy give sermons for twenty years. One presumes he also had personal conversations from time to time with this guy for twenty years. Presumably, Obama donated money to this guy's causes (through the church) for twenty years. As I recall Obama even characterized this guy as his spiritual mentor, or something like that, and had this guy perform his wedding ceremony. This is not a mere acquaintance.

Wright says Obama in truth agrees with a lot of his hateful opinions, but cannot give his public assent simply because he is running for public office. The point, which Obama's excuse-makers seem to miss and in any event ignore, is that many of us suspect that there could be at least a kernel of truth to what Wright is saying. Perhaps Obama does share a lot more ideology with Wright than he would ever publicly admit. Perhaps Obama, if elected, really would not do anything to help people like me.

In light of this possibility, we all need to continue to ask ourselves questions about Obama. Is he the best person to be the Democratic Party's nominee?

Posted by: abcde3 | April 30, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Is Jeremiah Wright running for President or am I missing something? Please enlighten me.

Posted by: Gharza | April 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

But you should admit that Obama is a totally flawed candidate, his religion would have been questioned by any sentient being and from my view point, I am thrilled he is your nominee b/c he will likely been unable to obtain even the McGovern results.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman: Proud used to be a pretty good poster (for a con). Now she's just zouk in a skirt.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 30, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

first of all he is not my front runner. Secondly why are you so obsessed with Romney? He is an empty suit with great hair much like my governor. And once again it was the evangelical libs as you call them who were destroying Romney, dems could actually care less who you chose as a nominee. As you know I am a moderate D and I was personally cheerleading for Romney. If there were some idiots as you say ranting and raving against Romney that wasn't me on anyone I know who call themselves Ds. My secy is Mormon and I really respect their dedication to their community with their missionary work its admirable. But you should admit that Romney was a totally flawed candidate, his religion would have been questioned by cultural R conservatives and from your view point you should be thrilled he is not your nominee b/c he would likely been unable to obtain even the McGovern results.

do you like to just post garbage you don't like and attach the word lib to it, and think someone might be impressed? that doesn't sound very productive.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"tell that to truckers, farmers and single mom's struggling to pay their bills. Your answer: get a helmet, eat cake, wait for 5-10 years for a solution if you can survive."

Your answer: Cut gas prices by 5% for 3 months. Then hope that gas prices don't go right back up again, due to increased demand and oil companies raising prices for the heck of it. I'm sure the truckers and single mothers (apparently the only people who pay for gas) will love you for that.

Hillary's logic works for all kinds of issues. Healthcare is too expensive. Let's give everyone a 5% discount on healthcare for a few months. The Iraq War is a disaster. Let's withdraw 5% of the troops for the summer, then send them back in September. I look forward to Hillary announcing these significant and vital policy changes, a few weeks after John McCain announces them himself.

Posted by: Blarg | April 30, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman. Simple... the oil companies will just increase prices to offset their lost revenue from the Windfall tax. Duh.

Did you know oil companies get 52 cents for every gallon of ethanol-mixed gas?

We have no leverage with oil companies.... if we don't play by their rules there are plenty of other countries, starting with China, who are more than willing to take up the slack.

The only way to free ourselves from this merry-go-round is to free outselves from foreign fuel sources. It's called an energy policy.... which isn't Cheney behind closed doors conniving with his oil cronies.

We need a fresh look at things and a break with the failed policies of the past.

Obama at least doesn't pander with a hollow "summer tax holiday" that solves nothing and actually makes the economy worse by throwing people out of work.

I'm not an Obama spinner. Just transferred my hopes from Biden.... Lucy

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 30, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Jow convenient that Clinton brings up Rev Wright but fails to mention that he was one of the spiritual leaders who was invited to the White House after Bill's affair with Monica to help guide him back to the moral high road. So how did Rev Wright influence the Clinton's back then and why is this not a factor?

In 50 years of attending church, I never took any of the sermons I heard seriously. In fact sermons bore me. I went to church to be in the presence of a higher being and to spirtually refresh my soul through the prayer and rites of the church service. Church is a community of people who share the same Christian beliefs. I know many who did not like or agree with the sermons, but they continued to attend because they liked the community of parishoners. I don't view pastors as being the direct spoke person for the higher being. It's their interpretation of a situation, just like you and I have our own interpretations. It's obvious we don't agree on things, but in the end we come together in support of the Church as an entity and for the things that the Church stands for, not what the pastor says in a sermon. A pastor's sermon may not be agreeable to us, but we may stick by him because of the spiritual guidance and comfort he gives us when we face difficulties in our lives is different from that of his sermons.

Posted by: nevadaandy | April 30, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

So proud, the conservative GOP primary voting base now takes its marching orders from the liberal MSM? The same networks and newspapers you cons profess to ignore?

Sure, that makes sense too.

You need to pick your battles better.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 30, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

TruthHunterButNeverFinder, The liberal MSM was all over Romney's religion and you know it. They did scintillating exposes on the Mormon faith, and hacks like Soledad O'Brien and Chris Matthews were foaming at the mouth every night to bring it up over and over again. Will it hurt him? Will it be "an issue"? Oh please, they had it on the front page for months.
The MSM latched onto the whole Mormon narrative and attached it to Romney's bid for the nomination...now the same fools at CNN are falling over themselves to pat Jeremiah Writght on the back for his brilliant speeches at the NAACP and Press Club.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Riiiight, proud, what liberals said about Romney's religion really played a big part in GOP primary voting.

Sure, that makes sense. Conservatives always take marching orders from liberals. Right, we believe that.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 30, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

truth since that is what you call yourself and which seems dubious from your post. You do understand that HC's gas tax plan is funded with a Windfall Profits tax that will likely reap more revenue for bridges and roads then lost.

So exatly how is replacing one revenue stream with a larger revenue stream going to cost 300,000 jobs? Lucy we need some splaining from the Obama spin machine.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP... It was the GOP during the primaries who were dragging Romney's religion into the mix.... so much so that he had to give a speech to explain his faith. Guess depending only on FOX news can be disorienting.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Very entertaining board, everyone!

I especially enjoyed mibrooks's slagging of Hillary Clinton's supporters as toxic hags and overly sensitive beta males. Pretty funny given that her support is coming from hard-working working and middle-class voters.

In short, the self-proclaimed Democrat mibrooks is a vile, nasty, piece of garbage.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 30, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"Furthermore, the liberals were the FIRST ones to make a huge issue about Mitt Romney's church. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you hypocrits are playing the race card again...how predictable. "

You can't open your mouth without lying, can you?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

While Bobsy kids McSame and Hillary pander to voters with a "summer tax holiday" proposal, Obama points out that with this approach 300,000 jobs would be lost this summer since that tax is for highway infrastructure construction and repair.

It's this Bush/McSame/Hillary "pay later" approach that has gotten us in this fix, and Bush can't find the energy policy "magic wand" that he pined for yesterday.

The Wright flap is history. It's back to issues that matter.... deal with it.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Now With Instant Results! Come Vote On The Most

Accurate Poll There Is!

The Only Poll That Matters.

www.votenic.com

Posted by: votenic | April 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

leichtman, are you dyslexic or something? The liberals were ranting and raving on here about Mormonism and how they wanted to run against Romney because of it! It was going to be a major campaign theme - go after his wacky religion.

Well guess what, your D frontrunner for the nomination belongs to a church that is far outside the mainstream and he has a 20 year pattern of clinging to the black liberation chuch for whatever spiritual or political frustrations he is having.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"libs in the "R" party' made a big deal about Romney's church? huh

Actually the sentiment against Romney here locally was coming from the local evangelical churches, libs as you would call them.

Dems never cared much about Romney in fact most of us were actually were hoping he would have been your nominee.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Dave! is right. The objections we have with either dem candidate stems from a fundamental disagreement with their policies, or lack thereof as the case may be.

Furthermore, the liberals were the FIRST ones to make a huge issue about Mitt Romney's church. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you hypocrits are playing the race card again...how predictable. the fact is, Obama's church is way more radical and out of the mainstream than is Romney's. Deal with it.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"And in this case it won't even make a dent."

tell that to truckers, farmers and single mom's struggling to pay their bills. Your answer: get a helmet, eat cake, wait for 5-10 years for a solution if you can survive. Once again watch Sen Obama spin like a dime next week and endorse this plan when he realizes, too late, that he is once again out of touch. Is it going to help me or you, not likely but how about the single mom on the edge of bankruptcy, the farmers and truckers struggling to keep their businesses afloat, or the truly poor that I ran into at my local gas station who had to push their car to the station and beg for enough money to get enough gas in their car to get them home, and who are literally begging for help. Sorry, your side just doesn't get it and yesterday I read an Obama supporter's suggestions here that these struggling families just need to go out this afternoon and buy a new $26,000 Prius and start driving less. How elitist of your campaign to tell let them eat cake.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

'divisive' a republican talking about divisive... LOL

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

' radical black'

key words. Scary black man alert!

Posted by: racistR | April 30, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

betty - "ITS SEEM THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN GOING AFTER OBAMA SINCE HE WON IOWA.. WHY? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY FEAR HIM..MAYBE BECAUSE MOST REPUBLICANS ARE WHITE AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE A BLACK PRESIDENT..OR MAYBE ITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE MCCAIN AND DON'T WANT A BLACK PRESIDENT.."

Well my shift key-challenged poster, most Democrats are white also. In fact, most Americans period are white. Those meaningless statistics aside, polling shows that a large number of white's, both Republicans and Democrats have been voting for Obama in primaries. Like most people, Republicans are not against a black or a woman becoming president. Many are against THESE two becoming president, for reasons that have nothing to do with their gender or color. I don't detest Clinton because she is a woman, I detest her because she is divisive and promotes policies that I don't agree with. I won't vote for Obama because he has even fewer policies that I agree with and I believe he is hypocritical with his "new kind of politician" claim. But I guess I must just be blowing smoke because according to you, if you don't support him, it must be because you are a racist. To answer your specific question, Republicans have been going after Obama for the same reason that the Clintons have - he has either been in the lead or has been one of the top candidates since Iowa.

Posted by: Dave! | April 30, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Because republicans are only worth $5.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

SO MUCH FOR MARKET SOLUTIONS, HEY PROUD?

YOU PEOPLE ARE PATHETIC.

STOP WHINING. IT WAS YOUR PARTY'S POLICIES THAT BROUGHT ON THIS TANKING ECONOMY.

EAT IT.

Posted by: Glendale | April 30, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

MEXICO CITY -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday that sending a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf could serve as a "reminder" to Iran, but he said it's not an escalation of force.

Speaking to reporters after meeting with Mexican leaders, Gates said heightening U.S. criticism of Iran is not a signal that the administration is laying the groundwork for a strike against Tehran.

Still, he said Iran continues to back the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"I do not have a sense at this point of a significant increase in Iranian support for the Taliban and others opposing the government in Afghanistan," Gates said. "There is, as best I can tell, a continuing flow, but I would still characterize it as relatively modest."

His comments contrasted with those from Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said last week that he had not seen any signs of Iranian support for the Taliban."

Posted by: LIAR | April 30, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"interesting bonjedi I just found that same story you cut and pasted all over the Obama and Huffington post web site today. You think you could mimick the Axelrod opo research talking points a little more."

Don't forget Drudge. And he links to the original story from McClatchy.

And it doesn't take oppo research for anyone to figure out that Hillary is a pandering liar who talks out of both sides of her mouth.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

"you roll over like a five dollar wh0re."

With Democrats the price is typically in the $5000 range. Just ask Eliot Spitzer.


Incidentally, I find it interesting how snObama has recently called upon John McCain as "the standard bearer" for the Republican Party to denounce all manner of offenses.

Who, exactly, is the Standard Bearer now for the Democrats? Senator Jeremiah Obama the radical black liberation theology church attendee, or Billary Clinton, serial liar and Bosnian sniper-fire victim?

Standards, we don't need no stinking standards!


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA IS THE STRONGER CANDIDATE ITS CLEAR NOW

CLINTON NEEDS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, BILL HER DAUGHTER AND EVERYONE TO HELP HER BEAT OBAMA


CLINTON IS THE WEAKER CANDIDATE..


ONCE OBAMA BECOMES THE NOMINEE

THE ISSUE WILL SHIFT FROM REV WRIGHT TO

IF YOU WANT THE WAR IN IRAQ TO CONT..

THAN VOTE MCCAIN..IF YOU WANT THE BUSH POLICIES TO CONT...THAN VOTE MCCAIN

IF WANT OUR BELOVED TROOPS TO COME HOME THAN VOTE FOR OBAMA..IF YOU WANT TO SEE REAL CHANGE IN AMERICAN THAN VOTE OBAMA

AND ANYONE WHO VOTES FOR MCCAIN IS VOTING FOR THE WAR TO BE ENDLESS..

MCCAIN WILL LOSE..BECAUSE IN THE END...

WE WANT OUR TROOPS HOME..

NOT A HUNDRED YEAR WAR..

Posted by: betty | April 30, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

How is Sen Obama message on gas prices a message of Hope?
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:34 AM

How is Hillary's plan going to help truckers/farmers/single moms/the elderly?
That is the point, the Gas Holiday isn't really a plan at all. It is pandering, it does nothing for those who she claims to be helping. I suggest you actually try to understand the economics of the situation instead of just the politics. That is Sen. Obama's message; this isn't just politics as usual. The honest truth is nothing can be done today that will make gas prices $2 a gallon tomorrow. We won't be able to make them affordable anytime soon. Gas prices are affected by more than just the U.S. We have to look to long term solutions today in order to solve our energy issues in the future so they do not continue to worsen. Accepting short-term fixes aren't going to assist truckers in 6 months let alone five years. Leichtman, life is tough get a helmet. Simply throwing money at a problem (especially one this large) isn't going to solve the problem. And in this case it won't even make a dent. In fact, it will probably make the problem worse and actually worsen conditions for those Hillary claims to be connecting with.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

interesting bonjedi I just found that same story you cut and pasted all over the Obama and Huffington post web site today. You think you could mimick the Axelrod opo research talking points a little more.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

McCain flipflops on his pledge to run a clean campaign, again:


"The senator from Arizona last week told the North Carolina GOP not to run an ad linking the state's Democratic candidates for governor -- Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue, both Obama supporters -- to Wright.

But on Monday, McCain said he would no longer get involved in such matters.

"I will not be a referee," he said"

Posted by: Cal | April 30, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

interesting that he would get Ben Chandler of Ky's endorsement considering that HC is ahead by 36 points currently in Ky.
Unlike you I think that the supers can actually do what they want but they need to be prepared for the political blowback, which is exactly what I told my still undecided Congressman.
"Denis Fleming, Chandler's chief of staff, said that the congressman's offices in Lexington and Washington had received about 300 phone calls opposing his decision -- and only five in favor -- by about 2:30 p.m. yesterday.")

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse


"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Democratic National Committee TV ad released Sunday uses Sen. John McCain's remarks on U.S. troops staying in Iraq for "100 years" to paint a portrait of a candidate fixated on keeping a permanent presence in the war-torn country.

Sen. John McCain is under attack for comments he made on U.S. troops staying in Iraq for "100 years."

But Republican National Committee officials believe that McCain's comments are being misused, and they're firing off a missive to TV stations: Pull the ad from the airwaves."

Incredible. The masters of slime advertiising are now whining like little babies for a fair ad to be pulled. What buffoons. What happened to freedom of speech, comrades?

Posted by: Cal | April 30, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, can you point me to some Clinton spin that explains away the fibs your candidate is telling about Indiana defense contractor Magnequench, and how the Bush administration let the company and its good-paying jobs slip away to China, when in fact it was the Clinton administration that approved the sale and let the jobs disappear? Is this Senator Clinton's experience that is relevant in Indiana, how to send Hoosier jobs to China?

The usual hate blogs are silent on the topic. Can you please help us understand this flim-flammery?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

THEY WERE ATTACKING OBAMA WHEN CLINTON WAS THE FRONTRUNNER WHY..

YOUR TRYING TO TELL ME THAT ABC, FOXNEWS AND CNN ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO ASK THIS QUESTION
DON'T YOU FIND IT KIND OF STRANGE THAT REPUBLICAN ARE NOT ATTACKING CLINTON
WHY IS THIS..I'M ASKING A QUESTION FOR MYSELF IN THE HOPES THAT SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS HILLARY CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR MAYBE SOMEONE FROM THE MEDIA CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTIONS
ITS SEEM THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN GOING AFTER OBAMA SINCE HE WON IOWA..
WHY?
MAYBE BECAUSE THEY FEAR HIM..MAYBE BECAUSE MOST REPUBLICANS ARE WHITE AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE A BLACK PRESIDENT..OR
MAYBE ITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE MCCAIN AND DON'T WANT A BLACK PRESIDENT..
MAYBE REPUBLICAN HAVE CHOOSEN HILLARY TO SUPPORT
NOONE FROM ABC, FOXNEWS, CNN OR ANY OTHER NEWS CHANNEL SEEMS TO BE SMART ENOUGHT TO ASK
DON'T YOU FIND IT KIND OF STRANGE THAT REPUBLICAN ARE NOT ATTACKING CLINTON
WHY IS THIS..I'M ASKING A QUESTION FOR MYSELF IN THE HOPES THAT SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS HILLARY CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR MAYBE SOMEONE FROM THE MEDIA CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTIONS
ITS SEEM THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN GOING AFTER OBAMA SINCE HE WON IOWA..
WHY?
MAYBE BECAUSE THEY FEAR HIM..MAYBE BECAUSE MOST REPUBLICANS ARE WHITE AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE A BLACK PRESIDENT..OR
MAYBE ITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE MCCAIN AND DON'T WANT A BLACK PRESIDENT..
MAYBE REPUBLICAN HAVE CHOOSEN HILLARY TO SUPPORT


Posted by: betty | April 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

"or the 4 supers including a very important N. Carolina Governor who have endorsed HC over the last 48 hrs."

Whoops, my bad. I meant three in the last 24 hours. If we go back 48 hours, Obama still has the edge.

Answer my question, please - tell me a hate site that has Clinton spin on why Obama keeps pulling down more superdelegates, even after Clinton's PA "victory."

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, perhaps he learned his lesson in the state legislature. Cutting gas tax will do nothing for individual consumers. My guess, now that voters see exactly what really matters to Hillary Clinton (votes and getting elected) she drops out in June.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

bondo, I am unconcerned for my own expenditure at the pump, and quite a bit concerned about the gas prices effect on truckers and farmers and that negative impact on the economy as a whole.

Truckers and framers use a huge amount of gas proportionally to do their jobs; jobs which literally keep the economy rolling and keep revenue streams intact.

John McCain's econominc plans address the concerns of average Americans who are currently struggling, and his plans include tax reduction across the board including doubling the child tax deduction.

These are common sense approaches which I support from a moderate and balanced fiscal conservative platform. His plan will ultimately stimulate the economy, instead of hog-tying it like the Dems suggest with a larger tax burden on average Americans and small businesses and increased regulations.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

or the 4 supers including a very important N. Carolina Governor who have endorsed HC over the last 48 hrs.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

" And just as your post states, this isn't any kind of long term solution."

absolutely no one is suggesting its a long term fix but we need a short term, intermediate term and long term solution to il prices. Jusut standing on the sidelines as Sen Obama has suggested, saying nothing can be done in the short term, and wait for 5-10 years for wind, solar, and CAFE standards to kick in is not going to help the truckers or single moms who desperately need help today, not in 2013. How is Sen Obama message on gas prices a message of Hope?

HC's plan also calls for the Senate to begin investigations of oil company price gouging which Obama supporters complain as an excuse to not temporarily drop the gas tax.

Long term solutions are fine but exactly what does that do to slow exploding food and gas prices today?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Proud - What kind of republican are you? Your supposed to pride yourself on self-reliance, but as soon as someone offers to knock a couple of bucks off the price of a tank of gas, you roll over like a five dollar wh0re.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I can not find the Clinton spin on the three supers Obama has pulled in over the last 48 hours. Once you can pull yourself away from this loser gas tax idea, can you point me to some hateblogs that say why these three supers choosing Obama are good for Hillary?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Leictman, Your candidate said that she would introduce legislation to impose a new windfall-profits tax on oil companies and use the revenue to suspend the gasoline tax temporarily. Windfall-profits tax?

The oil industry has a pre-tax profit margin less than half of that of the computer industry.

They made $40 billion in profits on ~$220 billion in sales, which isn't exactly a runaway model for investors. The company for which I worked did better than ExxonMobil's 18.6% margin in three of the last four years I worked there.

Microsoft performed more than twice as well. "Windfall profits" needs a lot more definition than just gross numbers -- especially to the massive amounts of investors in oil companies, including most if not all retirement accounts which rely on growth.

Hillary's plan is nothing more than a sleight of hand. She wants to replace one tax with another.

The windfall-profits tax hits consumers in two ways: it forces the oil companies to pass that cost along to the consumers by raising the prices, and it cuts into investments in new oil fields and increased production.

If Obama opposed Hillary's windfall-profits tax, he might even make sense ... but he has his own plans for hiking taxes on oil companies. He won't even bother with the tax holiday that would give momentary relief before distorting the market with his own schemes.


In any market, price reductions come from three mechanisms:
Increased supply
Cost reductions on production
Lower demand

Both Hillary and Obama offer nothing that will lower prices, and in fact they propose throwing gasoline on the fire.

In order to lower prices, we need to do some of all of the three above. Increasing supply makes the most long-term sense. We need to start tapping into our domestic supply on a large-scale basis, which would protect Americans from the market manipulations of foreign governments.

We also need to eliminate regional mixtures and have all refineries producing the same product, and we need more refineries on line so we can stop importing 20% of the product at the pump from overseas.


The tax policies of the Democrats portend disaster for Americans looking for common sense relief at the pumps.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

" Being for a tax holiday would earn him votes; it wouldn't help drivers one bit"

Then why did Senator Obama as an Illinois State Senator proudly vote for a 6 cent state cut when gas prices were $1.25/gallon and brag how he thought it was such a great idea that Illinois gas stations should post his name as helping Illinois drivers, but at $4/gallon and exploding inflation and food costs in 2008 it is suddenly a bad idea. He is truly tone deaf. My guess, after he figures out how he poorly his positions plays with Indiana truckers and farmers next Tues, by next week he will be claiming that the idea was all his in the first place.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

The impact on the truckers and farmers who use significantly more gas in order to do their jobs and keep the economy rolling, is really the point here.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 11:04 AM

Then why propose a Holiday for everyone? If the point is to keep truckers from going under, than why extend the plan to everyone as if they would benefit? And where does McCain plan on getting the money to pay for the gas holiday? Granted it wouldn't cost as much if it were only for diesel or truckers, but still where does it come from? That money is used to repair and maintain the roads those truckers use, so while they get back to work the roads they depend on go to shambles? And just as your post states, this isn't any kind of long term solution. And if it is extended to the average consumer (which is McCain's plan) it will probably drive demand and therefore gas prices higher, which will hurt Truckers even more.

I still fail to see how this Holiday is anything more than pandering for votes. It makes zero sense economically or financially.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

NO THIS IS HOT

ABC, MSNBC EXCEPT KEITH OLBERMANN, FOXNEWS, CNN ALL TARGETED OBAMA AND USED THE REV WRIGHT ISSUE FOR RATINGS...

ALL KNEW WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID ALL KNOW WHAT HAGEE SAID BUT DID NOT NOTHING..SO THE MEDIA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BLOWING THIS STORY OUT OF PORPORTION.

FIRST OF ALL IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR IN THE CHURCH FOR ONE DAY TWENTY YEARS OR ONE HOURS

MCCAIN EXPECTED HAGEE ENDOREMENTS SO HE EXCEPTED HAGEE VIEWS..

YOU CAN'T SUGAR COAT THAT.I REALIZE THAT THIS IS THE MESSAGE THAT NEEDS TO GET AROUND THE BLOGS OBAMA SUPPORTER STICK TO THIS MESSAGE BECAUSE ITS THE TRUTH..

MEDIA HAS PICKED AND CHOOSEN WHO AND WHAT RELIGION THEY WANT TO ATTACK WELL I'M HERE NOT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT

READ BELOW

WHICH ONE IS MORE DAMAGING
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH RAPE
OR REV WRIGHT RANT
RAPE VERSE RANT..
HMMM.
AND YET YOU ALL GOT A OPINION
FIRST OF ALL I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT DOUBLE STANDARD THAT MCCAIN DIDN'T GO TO HAGEE CHURCH HE EXCEPTED HIS ENDORSEMENT WHICH MEANS MCCAIN EXCEPTED EVERYTHING HAGEE BELIEVES
TWENTY YEARS..ONE YEAR..ONE DAY A BAD PASTOR IS A BAD PASTOR YOU SEE NOW WE WANT DOUBLE STANDARDS..
IF SOMEONE TOOK MONEY FROM YOU FOR ONE DAY OR FOR TEN YEARS HOW WOULD YOU FEEL. WOULD YOU SAY OH IT WAS ONLY FOR ONE DAY HE'S NOT WRONG...COME ON STOP THE DOUBLE STANDARDS STOP THE RACISM
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PREIST RAPED THOSE BOYS
SO ALL WHO ARE CONNECTED TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SHOULD BE IN THE NEWS LIKE THEY DID REV WRIGHT..

HAGEE SAID HURRICAN KATRINA PEOPLE DESERVED WHAT THEY GOT
SO MCCAIN SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HAGEE
THIS IS FAIRNESS..BUT WHEN YOU SEE JUST REV WRIGHT BEING PLAYED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAN YOU KNOW ITS RACISM ITS RACISM BY MEDIA..AND THE PUBLIC WHO CAN CAST JUDGEMENT ON REV WRIGHT BUT NOT THERE OWN CATHOLIC CHURCH OR HAGEE..
THIS DOUBLE STANDARD
THESE BOYS WERE RAPED NOT RANTED AT
BUT RAPED
WHAT HAGEE SAID DAMNED AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO WERE AFFECTED BY HURRICAN KATRINA..
BUT THE MEDIA AND HILLARY AND MCCAIN SUPPORTERS CAN HARP ON REV WRIGHT..

Posted by: betty | April 30, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

That's right! Funding for infrastructure is pork! We don't need no stinking roads and bridges. We need to turn into a 3rd world country like Mexico. And's that's exactly where we're going.

Posted by: Lese | April 30, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The idea that if the gopvernment took less money from gas sales to fix roads it would help drivers ignores economics. If you cut taxes nationwide, people would drive as much and pay as much for gas. The oil companies would p[ocket more. If youu cut taxes inone state, oil companies shift gas to that state where their profits on a tank are higher. Prices go down, although significantly less than taxes go down.
Obama's problenm is that he listens to economists rather than to media consultants. Being for a tax holiday would earn him votes; it wouldn't help drivers one bit.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | April 30, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

"As a trucker who is angry about rising fuel prices, Mark Kirsch supports Sen. John McCain's call for a tax holiday."

Since McCain refuses to explain how he will replace the $9 billion lost to the Roads and Bridges funding, curious if this R trucker would like to drive his truck on Minneapolis bridges after John McCain cuts funding by $9 billion. The gas tax holiday is meaningless if it is not offset by corresponding road and bridge revenues but as I recall proud you and Senator McCain consider funding for the Minneapolis Bridge project and N.O. levies to be nothing but pork.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"The truckers who are taking their own time to picket and protest right now are in need of some help from Washington to maintain their livlihood"

Slackers -- get back to work.

They want government welfare? From the government you despise and want to drown in a bathtub? Where's the money supposed to come from? Taxpayers? Tough sh*t. It's rough all over. Let them take care of themselves like everybody else does.

What happened to the rhetoric about 'independence'?

Posted by: Samuel | April 30, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

to the coward now back to posting my name I am curious if they remember that John McCain was often mentioned by the John Kerry campaign as a potential running mate since they think it cute to post Clinton-McCain.
Did you make such comments at the John Kerry blog site that many of us participated in; doubtful.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Goddamn Bush and Goddamn his clone McCain. They have destroyed this country.

Posted by: True Patriot | April 30, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

JNoel writes about the proposed gas tax holiday " it does virtually nothing for the average consumer"

The impact on the truckers and farmers who use significantly more gas in order to do their jobs and keep the economy rolling, is really the point here.

The truckers who are taking their own time to picket and protest right now are in need of some help from Washington to maintain their livlihood.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association says many of its members believe diesel prices at more than $4 a gallon is making it difficult for them to stay in business.

As a trucker who is angry about rising fuel prices, Mark Kirsch supports Sen. John McCain's call for a tax holiday.


Kirsch called McCain's proposal -- a federal gasoline tax holiday from Memorial Day to Labor Day -- a good start. But he acknowledged that permanent solutions have to be found. He said truckers are working to meet with McCain's campaign during an April 28 national rally in Washington, D.C.

"I'm a Republican at heart, so I'm kind of glad a Republican is finally going to step to the plate," he said.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 30, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama's former pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings.

We expect to see this sort of race-baiting behavior from Fox News Channel, but CNN and MSNBC have, once again, similarly crossed the tabloid threshold into the very same nefarious Roger Ailes realm by beating this nothing story to death.

Posted by: what utter racist BS | April 30, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

The Obamanistas bringing up McCain's assocciations with Rev. Hagee to try to show a similar relationship as the Jerimiah Wright and Barack Obama one, are skating on thin ice. Hagee mearly endorsed McCain while Wright the Louis Farrakhan desciple and Barack Obama had a 20 year love affair going with Obama giving him monetary support every week. McCain gave Hagee nothing and didn't attend his church.

Posted by: truthbetold | April 30, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Just got to thinking more about this...

All the furor over Rev. Jeremiah's Wright's oft-quoted, "...goddamn America!"

Or have we forgotten that George Bush called the U.S. Constitution, "...just a goddamned piece of paper."

So conservatives and Republican politicos have put their smear machine into high gear over Wright, and some Democrats as well, all of it to derail the presidential bid of Barrack Obama.

But we hear nary a whine or a whimper from them about George Bush's condemnation of the very Constitution he swore to uphold...which he, and now through his stacked Justice Department (remember the firings?), are literally tearing apart the very foundations of America's Constitutional underpinnings.

All Rev. Wright said were the words, "Goddamn America," and in a context quoted in its entirety by Jabeaux in a recent post. And what he said, as far as I'm concerned, was speaking the truth of a sad American history in treatment of minorities. Yes, blunt it was...no holds barred. But perhaps it needed to be said.

So the pastor was simply speaking his mind, something we are told is guaranteed as free speech in our Bill of Rights. Sure, many may disagree and take offense, but that he said it is his right.

But then there are Bush's words...the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper."

The difference being between what Wright said and what Bush said...is that Bush not only said the words, he has been acting upon his words in ways deliberately intended to undermine and subvert the Constitution of the United States!

Wright said words; Bush is set upon destroying the words that spell out the fundamental foundations of our democracy!

So let me ask: so where are all the goddamned conservatives and Republicans who complain so bitterly about Wright's words, yet have NOTHING at all to say about Bush's assault on our freedoms??

Here's just one prime example from the Online Journal about that:

_________________________

White House asked DOJ how Bush could sidestep Fourth Amendment
By Jason Leopold
Online Journal Contributing Writer
(excerpts from article)


Last week, the Pentagon declassified an 81-page memorandum John Yoo, a former deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, drafted in March 2003. The memo was publicly released as part of the American Civil Liberties Union's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Pentagon.

Buried deep within that legal document is a footnote that refers to an Oct. 23, 2001, legal memorandum written by Yoo.

"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations," the footnote states, referring to a 37-page document titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States."

Yoo is the author of an August 2002 legal opinion widely referred to as the "Torture Memo" that gave CIA interrogators the legal authority to use brutal methods against suspected terrorists.

The Sept. 21, 2001, memo Yoo sent to Flanigan was referred to in a lengthy story published in the New York Times on October 24, 2004. The Times story said Yoo's suggestions for suspending the Fourth Amendment was hypothetical at best.

Yoo refers to the case in his 2006 book, "War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror," where he argues in more than 23 separate pages about the various legal reasons local and federal law enforcement agencies, as well as a sitting U.S. president, could ignore the Fourth Amendment.

Last Thursday, John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey saying he was rebuffed on two previous occasions -- February 12 and 20 -- when he wrote the DOJ requesting the Oct. 23, 2001, memo be turned over to his committee

"The people of the United States are entitled to know the Justice Department's interpretation of the President's constitutional powers to wage war in the United States," Conyers added.

Jason Leopold is the author of "News Junkie," a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

_______________________


If this isn't bad enough, go back to FINE'S recent post about Senate Bill 1959.

It even makes the above report seem tame by comparison. But it is all part of the Bush Administration's continuing and deliberate sidestepping of our Constitutional foundations and Bill of Rights. Let me take that back. Instead, let's call it what it is...the deliberate intent to destroy our Constitution, our rights under it, and the freedoms of every American. And to replace it with....some dictatorial fantasy in George Bush's sick and twisted mind...that he intends to turn into reality! And sooner than we realize!

I just wish Obama would take the bull by the horns and refuse to shy away from this and refuse, as well, to distance himself from Wright's words. I'd rather see Obama embrace Wright's essential message:

African Americans and other minorities have been abused, exploited, shamed, tortured, murdered...and STILL victimized by a system so infected by the past...that we need to talk about it! And do something about it!

Provocative utterances, yes they are! Controversial, indeed they are!

With more and more young service men and women dying in Iraq, and if not killed there, they're committing suicide or coming home with emotional ghosts and damage beyond repair, with gas prices shooting through the roof thanks to George Bush's phony war, world hatred and ridicule being heaped upon us for blatant hypocrisy of a foreign policy where diplomacy has no meaning any more, filled instead with death and genocide, with home foreclosures here mounting ever higher, tax breaks for the rich and powerful, the dollar and our buying power falling lower...

...it seems Obama should be joining his pastor and declaring, instead:

GODDAMN BUSH FOR WHAT HE'S DONE TO AMERICA !!

...and do we need more of the same from McCain...or even Clinton?

Posted by: Jon Shafer | April 30, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone happen to know if Roland Martin is on the Obama payroll. He is on CNN 24/7 promoting Senator Obama and on their web site today posting his suggestions on how to revive the Obama campaign. What is ridiculous is how CNN regularly touts him as one of their objective political anaylist and then pushes people like Paul Begala off the air because they fear he is too partisan. What a joke.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Most young voters want to chose their President the same way they chose American Idol. Just vote on surface looks and not on substance.

Obama experience is so shallow and he is just another politician. He could have denounced Rev. Wright months or years ago, but he chose not to do so until he began losing the election.

If Obama did not have the black block of votes he would be just another senator.

Posted by: J Carney | April 30, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

What will it take for you morons to back Clinton? How about free gas? How about the promise of a Clinton/McCain ticket?

Hello? Is anyone listening?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"We care how we can pay our mortgages, if we can afford to fill up our minivans's gas tanks, and whether we will still have jobs in January,"

Judging by the rate at which you dump your nonsense in here, I didn't think you had a job right now.

Now shut up and get on board.

Posted by: TheTruth | April 30, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Clearly it is time that this country evaluates Obama's two answers to Wright


And picks the one that is closest to Obama's true feelings.

Sadly, the country must pick Obama's first answer that he stood by Wright - that is what Obama tried to do for a month until the polls started sliding.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 30, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I don't know why I'm surprised, but I am. I cannot believe people in this country are this ignorant. Barack Obama has no control over what his one-time pastor does, says, or thinks. Rev. Jeremiah Wright has been speaking his mind for YEARS - long before Obama was on the campaign trail. Barack Obama has said that he does not share Rev. Wright's views. How many more times does he have to say it before ignorant people pick up on it? This whole thing is a stupid waste of time and we're letting the media feed it to us and keep us hyped up on it every day.

I am so angry that people in this country are not intelligent enough to see that Rev. Wright's comments were ripped out of their original context, played as soundbites, and portrayed as the sum total of Rev. Wright's philosophies and theolgy. I am angry that Rev. Wright is being villified by people who have no idea about the work he's done over the years to serve God. the community, and this country. This man is a scholar and in addition to that, he spent time serving this country in the Marine Corps. He's not crazy and he's not "anti-America".

I am angry and sad that at a time when the future of this country is at stake, people are allowing themselves to be sidetracked by a non-issue such as this. Wake up, America!!!!! We're better and smarter than this. (Aren't we??????)

Posted by: bee bee | April 30, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

SENATOR OBAMA CARES MORE ABOUT REV WRIGHT THEN OUR GAS PRICES
Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 9:18 AM

Do you still believe this Gas Holiday to be a good idea? After listening to analyst after analyst basically say it was stupid and meaningless all last night and this morning I am amazed that you still think a Gas Holiday is the right course of action. How many different opinions do you need to hear? It does virtually nothing for the average consumer, other than perhaps drive gas prices higher. Hillary/McCain's holiday is nothing more than pandering to the polls. Just want I always wanted in my next President; a person who believes correct policies to go hand in hand with popularity.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 30, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

WHO IS RACE BAITING NOW ???


The Obama campaign is all about race - in fact they have backed the media into a corner in which the Obama campaign is the only people who are allowed to use race to their advantage.


Seriously people this is a complete joke.


Not for Nothing Obama's campaign theme is supposed to be about trancending race - however Obama time and time again does the EXACT OPPOSITE.


Judge a man by his actions, not his words.

Judge a man by his actions, not his words.

Obama is the biggest joke out there.

It really take some for a politician to be hypocritical with the core of his campaign themes - seriously people.


If Obama really wants to transcent race, get off the race card - tell the blacks that he wants them to judge the candidates equally.


Having the black community vote in such a block proves that the BLACKS are not trancending race.

Obama is the first on line with that one.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 30, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Emily Dickinson......Tell all the Truth but tell it slant/Success in Circuit lies/Too bright for our infirm Delight/The Truth's superb surprise . . .

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I can see here that the Obama campaign has instructed its people to attempt to change the subject - look how many posters here keep going back to that.

It really is an outrage how the Obama campaign wants to control the discussion.

Obama wants his cult members and that is about it - everyone else gets pushed aside.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 30, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

the gas tax cut another joke on the consumer and a windfall for oil companies. lower price will drive up consumption which will drive prices even higher.


Posted by: more voodoo economics | April 30, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

SENATOR OBAMA CARES MORE ABOUT REV WRIGHT THEN OUR GAS PRICES:
Nothing Senator Obama said yesterday changes the dynamics that his energy policy, economic and healthcare policies are wrong for voters in Indiana and N. Carolina. Interesting at a prior debate he bragged how he would like his support for a previous gas tax holiday to be posted at every gas station saying that Obama loves drivers. The only thing that he has forgotten since his 2000 support for the holiday is that gas prices have gone from $1.25 to $4/gallon. He was out of touch with blue collar voters yesterday, he still is. No one cares about his squabbles with Rev Wright, they are both simply out of touch with our real lives. We care how we can pay our mortgages, if we can afford to fill up our minivans's gas tanks, and whether we will still have jobs in January, not whether Senator Obama agrees with his out of control preacher he stood by for 20 years. Rev Wright gave Louis Farrekan an award for public service and praised his leadership. Why did that take Sen Obama until yesterday to figure out that that was morally wrong and out of step with blue collar and Jewish voters? Please take your squabble with Rev Wright back to Illinois; voters in Indiana and N. Carolina are simply not interested.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 30, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

ref: the tax..its not much but like the old lady said while pee'ing in the ocean..every little bit helps

Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Some ministers are activists: a voice for the oppressed. If an opportunity presents itself for being heard, then those who can speak out must do so, regardless of, in this case, collateral damage to Mr. Obama. One can parse Rev. Wright's comments without indulging their specifics. The government's targeting blacks for germ warfare can be taken as an allegory for protracted abuse.

To capitalize on ethnicity and religion, let's cook up some serious antipathy toward pointy-eared quarterwit primitives from Harvard and Yale, who should go back to Stonehenge.

Posted by: David | April 30, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

The WP fronts the latest from Iraq, where U.S. soldiers continue to get more involved in intense battles inside Baghdad's Sadr City. At least 28 Iraqis were killed yesterday in a four-hour battle that was one of the deadliest since the latest conflict flared up after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched an offensive against Shiite militias last month. The WP says American troops "are now engaged in the kind of urban battle ... reminiscent of the first years of war."

The U.S. military said the 28 dead were militants, but residents of Sadr City said the real death toll was at least 50, including many civilians (an Associated Press photograph shows a 2-year-old victim, and the LAT says a brother-in-law of one of its Iraqi journalists was also killed). Meanwhile, there are increasing fears that followers of cleric Muqtada Sadr will simply declare "an all-out war to defend themselves."

Posted by: the iraq disaster continues | April 30, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Republicans want you to keep thinking about this crazy old preacher while the price of gas keeps going up every single day and oil companies get record profits. And the price of food -- through the roof. And billions of taxpayer dollars flowing into corrupt contractors in Iraq.

But just keep doing what the Republicans want -- thinking about something totally irrelevant to your life. You are getting very sleepy. Your eyes are heavy. Rev. Wright, Rev. Wright....

Posted by: dumba*ss sheep | April 30, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

'Retail gas prices, meanwhile, increased for the 16th straight day. AAA reported the national average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline rose to a new record high of $3.617, up 1 cent from the previous day.'

'Two oil giants, BP and Royal Dutch Shell, announced record profits yesterday totaling $17 billion in the first three months of the year. Exxon Mobil is expected to smash its own previous records for quarterly corporate profits tomorrow. Average gasoline prices, meanwhile, have surged to a new high of $3.60 per gallon.'

Posted by: getting hosed | April 30, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq's government is expected to reap a $70 billion windfall from soaring oil prices, about double the previous projections, the U.S. military's reconstruction watchdog reported Wednesday.

The issue has become a sore spot for some U.S. lawmakers as the war enters its sixth year, with both Republicans and Democrats raising complaints that U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill for reconstruction work in the now-flush nation.

Congress has approved about $47 billion in reconstruction funding since the invasion. Any progress will depend on Iraq's ability to spend what it has budgeted and to keep a lid on a pervasive culture of corruption, which Bowen's office has described as a "second insurgency."

Posted by: we're suckers | April 30, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

"As a result of Obama's smartly-phrased repudiation of Rev. Wright, I call upon John McCain to repudiate, in similar terms and at similar length, his relationship with Rev. Hagee, and for Hillary Clinton to openly discuss and repudiate her relationship to her Capitol Hill prayer fellowship led by Doug Coe. Among other things, According to Mother Jones, "The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan." God's plan, according to them, seems to be "'spiritual war' on behalf of Christ". I, as a patriotic American, am at least as offended and frightened by anything Doug Coe and Sam Brownback are planning as I am by anything Rev. Wright is planning. Obama has repudiated Wright as forthrightly and gracefully as possible. Now I want the same from the others. The press must hold Clinton and McCain to the same standard as Obama. Hagee and Coe must go." Written by Jane Smiley for HuffPost and copied for post by ObamasLady These White candidates' religious affillations are the LUNATIC FRINGE OF SOCIETY! When will the MSM play the "guilt by association" game FAIRLY AND ACROSS THE BOARD?

Posted by: ObamasLady | April 30, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

The "Dirty Little Secret" here is how this pastor may not be thinking fully of the best needs of his flock.

Political music is *back*:

xpatriate-greetingsfromlafayettepark.blogspot.com/

dlsxpatriate.blogspot.com

Posted by: Robert Hewson | April 30, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse

lylepink


OK Lyle as long as one is specific about which number one is using - I believe it is not wise to use the numbers out of Michigan.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 30, 2008 6:45 AM | Report abuse

Obama is an interesting study to me. He laments divisiveness and distractions and guilt by association. But his first reaction to the Wright story was to shoot out a picture of Bill Clinton with Wright as a divisive distraction, and then to try to make Clinton guilty of Wright by association.

Turns out Obama doesn't want any divisiveness, any distractions, or any guilt by association regarding Jeremiah Wright anymore.
Fancy that.

I have said for weeks that I could never vote for Obama because I have nothing in common with his church congregation.

Now that Obama realizes that he, too, has nothing in common with his congregation, maybe there's HOPE.

Posted by: Jan | April 30, 2008 5:40 AM | Report abuse

obama has no worries about the upcoming primaries in indiana or north carolina. In Indiana, you're going to have alot of "crossover" voters from the southside of Chicago (illegally) voting in the primary. In North Carolina, alot of people from South Carolina will somehow all decide to relocate in time to vote in the primary.

Posted by: no worries | April 29, 2008 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom: The total votes cast in the Primaries is the only way to count the total votes cast. No matter who was on a ballot or not, campaigned in a state, or whatever. The Caucus votes in no way can be counted as everyone knows there is no way to do it in a meaningful way. So the assertion by Hillary is correct in that she has the most primary votes, and is backed up by most knowledgeable folks.

Posted by: lylepink | April 29, 2008 11:56 PM | Report abuse

Hillary never achieved a thing in her life. Even her marriage is a fake. How could she ever lead real people like Americans ???? One thing she know well and that is lining up her pockets over the backs of hard working Americans

Posted by: jwh | April 29, 2008 11:48 PM | Report abuse

This man is right, your government is corrupt and rips the simple American and gives it to the rich. This government gave your country the ugly name The United States of Liemerica. This man is right, your president lies to you about 9/11. Ask the bast_ard what happened with building 7, why did it collapse. Yes, explosives only to be found in Israel. The mossad has had a fat hand in it.

Posted by: jwh | April 29, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

I think we should reduce the gas tax this summer and put a higher tax on Colt 45 to make up for lost revenue.

Posted by: Saynotohightaxes | April 29, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

O-baaaa-ma,
O-ba-ma, you'll see,
he floats like a butterfly,
and stings like a bee!

Obama is still the champ!
Barack is baaaaak!

Posted by: martin edwin andersen | April 29, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


Whether Obama's campaign set-up this latest Friday - Tuesday episode or not, it is important to focus in on what exactly matters here - and that is what does Obama really believe ???

People can discuss Rev. Wright all they want, and some issues are legitimate, however Rev. Wright is not running.

Obama is the candidate. Obama brought his children to that church for years and years and years. The thinking of Michele Obama influences her husband and that has a measure of relevance.

We still do NOT have an accurate and full idea from Obama of what HE believes.

That speech last month in Philadelphia truly did not even come close to that question - instead it was a clever subterfuge - designed to bring up race however designed to hide Obama's own personal views.


Obama's own personal views are what matter.

Obama's own personal views are what matter because that is how we as a nation will judge what kind of decision maker he will be if he is ever in office.


We need to know enough about Obama in order to make that call.


So far this is what we've got: he stood by his man who Obama knew better than anyone, now is stands apart from him.


We have a speech in Philadelphia that for whatever anyone says, has more contradictions in it than answers.


The speech ran an outline of Black Liberation Theology - and while it did not fully endorse that theology, the speech did seek to AT LEAST justify it and state that it was understandable.

OK understandable - however WHAT does Obama believe???


What are Obama's personal views?? We still do not know.


Today's statements were contrived. They were born of polls showing Obama sinking to difficult to come back from levels.


Today's statements were born of a desire to save polls numbers tailored to what they think will help the overnight polling.

I think we all could have guess what will help the overnight pollling.

We still do not know what Obama's personal views are.

The speech in Philadelphia Obama blew it. This episode proves that speech was a complete mess.


Obama may be a conflicted man, a man of contradictions.

This is why we choose men who have experience, who have seen the world, who have been through all sorts of different times - that is called experience, and that is why we choose those men to make decisions for us.


Maybe Obama will be ready years from now, maybe someone else from his generation will be more qualified at that time - the key is now we do not know what Obama's personal views are.

My thought right now is that Obama doesn't know what his personal views are either.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 11:25 PM | Report abuse

proud to call me a lib is insane but that seems to be the extent of your obviously shallow vocabulary. Your post: In leicthman's liberal world utopia, all conservatives should agree on every issue so as to be easy fodder for generalized comments from the left when assigning blame for their failures in Congress.

your post makes zero sense other than to spew the boring word lib. I asked you 5 times why you did not oppose the nuclear option 2 years ago and then an explanation why your party now boldly uses the filibuster to attack Congress even when it clearly violates the extraordinary cicumstances clause you once celebrated?Reason: you know it is ultimate hypocrisy of your party. You insist as a R you can have it both ways. Obstruct and filibuster everything Congress attempts and then come here every day to whine about Congress. And to call W and R's in Congress who have been in charge of a $300 billion dollar defict after being handed a $250 surplus, and a 3 trillion dollar national debt as being Conservative means that you have and your party have absolutely no idea what that term means other than to try and frame Rs as being tough on economics. And what is conservative about a $30 billion dollar bailout of Bear Sterns that Rs cheered for?

:

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"As mentioned above, I can see Hillary announcing in June -- after she's won Indiana, come close in North Carolina, and threatening in the remaining contests -- that she will choose Colin Powell as her VP pick on a unity ticket."

yeah, just what we need. The one person who could have stopped the Iraq debacle in its tracks.

he has zero credibility anymore and the GOP would find a way to smear him anyway.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse


lylepink

What are you talking about? I read the Michael Barone article. I also know the numbers as well as anyone.


Michael Barone stated that Hillary is leading in the popular vote only if one includes Michigan which did not have Obama on the ballot.


And it also includes Florida, where Obama was on the ballot.


I did not parse your comment, however now I am stating that you are attempting to be deceptive.


The numbers are the numbers.

It is deceptive not to accurately state which number you are referring to.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

scrivener


Thank you very much.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 11:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris! Speak for yourself. You have no idea what America thinks. So you are a self declared typical white person. Who cares. Obama will be our next president....signed, "another typical white person".

Posted by: pop | April 29, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Well the cloud that Obama might hate America (as all Democrats do) has been lifted. Of course in it's place is a very public instance where Obama mis-judged someone's character. McCain may, or may not, be able to sling some mud about that. Hillary really can't because of her pretty iffy choice of husband.

I marvel that politicians put themselves through this sort of thing. Maybe it's true that politicians have some sort of gland the rest of us are missing.

Posted by: NoOneImportant | April 29, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

HOW IS IT THAT WRIGHT GETS TO SPEAK AT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB?

There will be more of Wright.

Nothing Obama can say will help, so he should say NOTHING.

Obama should follow Karl Rove's adivce-- See Newsweek. If you don't get the nomination, we will be writing in your name.

Posted by: orders9313@aol.com | April 29, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Hahahaha... Skinny pasty white guys who love Obama...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17099019879

Funny facebook group.

Posted by: kingofsoup | April 29, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

"Instead of "pretending" to solve the problem with a near meaningless bandaid, real solutions should be offered."


Conservatives are leading the way with real solutions, solutions that don't offer up more taxes and increased regulation.

As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison recently wrote, "biofuel mandates have increased greenhouse gasses and created incentives for global deforestation."

"The best way to lower energy prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, is to accelerate production of all forms of domestic energy.

Expanding biofuels while refusing to take other measures, such as lifting the ban on oil and natural gas production in Alaska and the Outer Continental Shelf, is counterproductive. We should be tapping into a broad portfolio of energy options, including clean coal, nuclear power and wave energy.

The key is increasing energy supply. By taking these measures, we can enable biofuels to be part of the energy solution, instead of contributing to the energy problem."

Hutchison is introducing legislation that will freeze the biofuel mandate at current levels, instead of steadily increasing it through 2022.


At one point, expanding biofuels made sense for America's energy security. But the recent surge in food prices has forced us to adapt. The global demand for energy and food is expected to rise about 50% in the next 20 years, and the U.S. is well-positioned to be a leader in both areas.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SenatorKayBaileyHutchison/2008/04/28/undoing_americas_ethanol_mistake?page=full&comments=true


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom: I reported ACCURATELY about Barone. Please, do not try and parse any comment I make, you are not in a position to do so, considering what you have Posted. I am not known as "lyleGENIUSpink" for nothing, you may not be aware of some FACTS that are easily obtained. Genius is applicable to an IQ, and used in that context.

Posted by: lylepink | April 29, 2008 10:09 PM | Report abuse

HAY CHRIS

When are you going to break the news Hillary is dropping out in June? I know you have good sources, everybody is talking about it on the inside.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I think the last few days Wright has been Wright. It is evident now that the "snippets" are a large part of who Wright is. As I hear Wright he doesn't look as if he is saying things he rarely speaks. He was fluently ignoramus. It is impossible therefore to believe that Obama hadn't heard/seen this side of Wright before. Obama's current rejection therefore is clearly borne out of political expediency.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

"People that insist on living 45 miles from work are part of the equation. "

Well then, I'll just tell the military to move it's air base closer to the clinic where I found work, after moving every two years for the next assignment. That was easy.

In leicthman's liberal world utopia, all conservatives should agree on every issue so as to be easy fodder for generalized comments from the left when assigning blame for their failures in Congress.

In the liberal utopia-world, people easily find jobs within walking distance from their homes, and if they must drive across many miles it means they have excessive carbon greed and don't care about conservation, even if they happen to live in flyover country where the next town is 30 miles away.

The fact of the matter is that John McCain is far more of a moderate who will achieve results on big problems like energy independence than is Obama or Clinton.

McCain is proposing lower taxes which will promote economic growth whereas the Dems will stifle growth with more taxes and more regulations. We can't force companies to create new technologies by decree and govt mandate.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Just read Words of Wisdom's analysis:

That the whole Wright-Obama contretemps of this weekend, yesterday and today was a crafty SET UP intended to give Obama another chance to distance himself from the Rev. and thus end the controversy and preserve his electability, or what's left of it.

This is brilliant, and probably spot-on. Words of Wisdom may have figured it out.

Reminds me of that episode of "The West Wing," the one where President Bartlet finished a TV appearance and then made an impolitic remark about his opponent, supposedly not knowing that the mic was still hot -- when in fact, he planned it that way as a means to devastate his opponent with the raw truth as he saw it.

Whatever the stagecraft, I agree with Jay Carney of Time magazine: It's too late for Obama. He's blown it in the electability contest. His only way to "win" is to checkmate Hillary by throwing his delegates to a dark horse and running as the VP -- or he could sit back and think Hillary will pick him as VP when she just as easily could choose Colin Powell and leave Obama's candidacy as another brief, shining moment, as stated supra, a quixotic footnote to political history.

Posted by: scrivener | April 29, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

lylepink


In all fairness to Michael Barone, you should read his article carefully and report it accurately. Michael Barone was very careful to state that his popular vote total included Florida and Michigan.


While it may be fair to include Florida, Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan.


Perhaps one could credit Obama with ALL the uncommitted votes in Michigan.

Real Clear has also estimated what the popular votes would be in four causus states, and added this fantasy number to the three popular vote totals mentioned above.

So there are six popular vote totals.

WHY don't they do this with the delegates - let's have separate totals which include Florida and Michigan???

The Democrats can not have a legitimate nominee without Florida and Michigan.


Is this simply a delusion???


Florida is the 4th largest state - Michigan is a major swing state.

It really makes you think whether anyone at the DNC is qualified to be in government given this Florida and Michigan dispute.


Seriously. Seriously.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

The world according to Obama - last month he stuck by his man - this month the guy is no good.


What changed?


Nothing. The Rev. Wright is the same - Obama knew him well - Obama knew everything - you are being sold a lie that Obama is not outraged.

WHAT Obama is outraged about is that he got caught with Rev. Wright, and he was unable to get through the election without the public finding out what Obama really thought about Black Liberation Theology.

Seriously Seriously Seriously.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

It is utterly disgusting that the media never gave the same attention to the lead up to the war as they have to Wright.

At the end of the day, American has a choice. I may not agree with everything Sen. Obama has done or said, but I can honestly say that I very proud of the way he has run his campaign.

Posted by: Anne | April 29, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Afia, you are a moron!
You are a clear example of what happens when you don't use the left part of your brain!

Posted by: Caronte | April 29, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

TO: AJ

The nomination will turn on perception of electability, not upon delegate counts as of today or even a month from now.

With Obama's "friends" who needs enemies?

If Obama is to preserve any political capital from an amazing but, in his words, improbable, campaign, he will suspend his campaign and either:

(a) Accept Hillary's VP invitation (if he hasn't already blown that option); or

(b) Throw his delegates to a dark horse such as Edwards or Gore and live to fight another day as a VP nominee (again, if he hasn't already blown that option).

As mentioned above, I can see Hillary announcing in June -- after she's won Indiana, come close in North Carolina, and threatening in the remaining contests -- that she will choose Colin Powell as her VP pick on a unity ticket.

That will satisfy black voters (who once again are doubting whether Obama has the right stuff to win) while drawing independents and disaffected Republicans -- and obviating the need to have Obama on the ticket at all.

Which is why a real fighter would checkmate Hillary by throwing his delegates to a third candidate. But it does not appear that Obama has it in him to take such a bold move -- at once selfless and shrewd, considering the circumstances he finds himself in.


Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

I found Michael Barone has Hillary ahead in primary votes cast. This goes against what most supporting Obama [The Media] are reporting. Barone is a highly regarded writer by both parties, and his book about politics is updated ever year or so. Several in The Media are "Picking and Choosing" the votes cast, including Caucus, which there is actually no way of knowing these numbers as best as I can determine. I am and will continue following Polls in NC and Indiana to see how this plays.

Posted by: lylepink | April 29, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

There's a fairly simple explanation for why Jeremiah Wright is speaking out in front of the press; he doesn't want to see Obama elected president. He's not stupid - he knows exactly what he's doing. Why doesn't he want Obama elected president? Because with Obama as president, Wright and his generation of civil rights leaders become obsolete dinosaurs. It's the oldest and saddest story in the world: the old desperately resisting the young usurpers.

Posted by: David | April 29, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Obama is toast.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mainstream America doesn't believe a word he says anymore.

We're learning about "Black Liberation Theology" and we're "mad as hell" about it.

He's ripped the curtain off of it and liberal whites feel like we've been played for fools.

The backlash is building and its going to be huge.

Obama isn't going to be elected to anything.

If he becomes the Democratic nominee, he'll be best recruiting tool Republicans ever had.

"Typical White People" are extremely angry.

Obama can't win, he can only cause Democrats to lose.

Posted by: Obama is toast | April 29, 2008 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, in your response to Leichman, you failed to mention the second part of Clinton's plan, which would pair a windfall tax on the oil companies with the gas tax break for consumers, so regardless of whether they raise their prices or not, the money doesn't just stop with the oil company as you posit. In fact, her plan would actually result in as increase in taxes collected from oil company profits.

In terms of the $0.18 per gallon savings that you so cavalierly dismiss, it actually does make a difference to me. Based on how much I have to spend to fill-up on gas each week, I would save a minimum of $21.60 a month. That translates to four lunches to me. Over the course of a year, that's $259.20. With that, I can buy an airline ticket to visit my family.

So, maybe you might be one of those latte democrats fortunate enough where you don't need to care if gas is $0.18 cents per gallon cheaper or not, or have no problems coming up with $259.20 to buy an airplane ticket whenever you like, but there are plenty of us little people out there for whom every single penny does make a difference.

Posted by: john_ccy | April 29, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

So, does the following quote means that Hillary should be questioned about her views on liberation theology:
"We came to see that, essentially, Hillary is a woman animated by a lifelong ambition. That ambition is to make the world accept the ideas she embraced in the sanctuaries of LIBERATION THEOLOGY, RADICAL FEMINISM, AND THE HARD LEFT. We came to see her as a politician who invented her own strategies of protective coloration, who learned to mask her true feelings and intentions. She had become the master manipulator of the press, the public, her staff, and--likely--even the president"

--BARBARA OLSON in her book
HELL TO PAY: The Unfolding Story Of Hillary Rodham Clinton (1999)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I'm still waiting for the media to discuss POLICY ISSUES, so that I can determine who to vote for in November. So far, I am most impressed by Senator Obama.

Senator Obama wants to move beyond petty distractions:
""What's troubling is the gap between our challenges and the smallness of our politics--the ease at which we are distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our seeming inability to build a working consensus to tackle any big problem" ---Barack Obama: AUDACITY OF HOPE (2006)

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Reverend Wright's clown act is somewhat anti-climatic in comparison to his original debut. Honestly, most people are on Jeremiah Wright fatigue, and now that he is reduced to media clown, nobody cares!

Posted by: Wanakee Hill | April 29, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Someone in the media should get off their butt and look into a Clinton supporter setting up the Wright NPC appearance.

Posted by: gbooksdc | April 29, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Rumor has it (more then a rumor) Clinton will get out in June. It is all the insiders are talking about. It is over there is no more need to discuss

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

And strangely enough, Obama has supported curtailing adding additional oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a measure to help (in agreement with McCain of all people), knowing that that miniscule amount will do absolutlely nothing to help.
Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 5:21 PM

His position is about the fact that we might want to think twice about "stockpiling" oil at these prices. Not necessarily relieving pressure on oil demand. Even the GAO (Government Accountability Office) wrote that the U.S. should change the way we acquire oil by setting a dollar amount.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 29, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Do we still have troops is Iraq?

Posted by: Bob Malone | April 29, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong with Rev. Wright's comments?

America has been involved in terriosts activities over the past 500 years.

Slavery, Duping Native Americans out of thier land, Bombing a bunch of innocent people in Japan. Supporting Bin Laden, then blaming Bin Laden. Backing the Taliban, then taking down the Taliban. Iran-Contra. Shall I continue?

Why do we call this country America, when America was never discovered??

Let's not reshape the past.....

Posted by: 4th via Home Floor | April 29, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

This whole Obama thing is a fake - he set up Rev Wright this weekend just so he could cut the ties.


It's a joke.


When will you all open your eyes?

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter: Now that is an insult "BIG TIME". I am only pointing out what I have been saying for months is quite ACCURATE. At least I didn't say "I told you so." There is no way in Hades he could have attended this church for 20 years and not known about these hate filled sermons. Combine these with his wife "Being proud of America for the first time im my adult life", Rezko, Farrakhan, and other close associates, the picture of him being a Liar and Fraud is getting clearer even to me.

Posted by: lylepink | April 29, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

as I recall there was a $250 billion surplus in Dec 2000 under the last Clinton Administration when he left office, that Cheney and Company quickly turned into a $300+ billion defict, so I find your suggestion of her not paying for anything to be laughable at best.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Brooks, you will find no post from me on The Fix, or anywhere else, supporting Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain as a candidate for President.

Your assumptions are completely erroneous.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 29, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

I pray for forgiveness
I pray for Unity
I pray for change
I pray we love each other

go OBAMA

Posted by: LETS JUST HAVE KING | April 29, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I fail to see why the liberals don't agree.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP

***************************

Because pandering has to be paid for. Clinton appears to be borrowing a tactic from Cheney and Reagan: don't pay for anything; just put it on the credit card. You'll be dead and gone when the bill comes due. No more.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I find it really fascinating that absolutely everything posted here over the last 2 months that takes issue with any position of Sen Obama is immediately branded as Hate by his supporters.

Posted by: Leichtman |

****************

Nope, just proven to be wrong or demonstrated to be an irrelevant distraction. You are the copy and paste BS king.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter - Don't even think about associating me with lylepink. To begin with, my privates are still intact. Secondly, I would much rather vote for a third term of Bush than vote for Clinton and her hysterical feminist mob or the fat overly senative beta males that fawn after them. I am, as of now, a McCain voter. I am defending Obama in the Wright controversy becasue I have the human dignity and intellectual honesty that is uterrly lacking by you Clinton swine. One thing is for certain, either way, the Democratic candidate in the upcoming election is going to be simply trashed and, if it's Clinton, there will be a lot of holes in Congress that will be filled by Republican's. The Toxic Hag and you looney members of her mob have wrecked the Democratic Party. It remains to be seen if the damage is permanent, but I and my friends certainly wont vote for anyone associated with Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

From TheHill.com - "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year."

Leichtman, I am trying to see things from your point of view. Can you direct me to a Hillary Hateblog that spins the above number into the proper perspective?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

ProudtobeGOP wrote:

Actually my commute is about 45 miles one way, so my MPG is a tad better than 20... but for an all-wheel drive Subaru, it doesn't do too badly in the blizzard conditions up here in the north country, so I'm willing to sacrifice a little mpg for that.

My Comment:
And any "savings" that you have will be wiped out by those unrepaired potholes on the interstate and collapsing bridges and other disasters which will result from the loss of fund for the Highway Repairs. (That's what the Federal Gas Tax goes for). Its short-sighted and foolish. Just like the "Rebate" checks being sent out by Bush. Its not a real savings.

ProudtobeGOP
This is at least a start and a little relief for average Americans during a tough summer. I fail to see why the liberals don't agree.

My Comment:
The problem is that it isn't a real start at all. Its an attempt to place a bandaid on a decapitated limb. But its an infected bandaid. It may stop the bleeding just a little bit, but so little as to have no impact and the infection, when the bleeding is stopped, would cause greater harm. Demand drives a part of the price. The value of the dollar to the Euro drives a large part of the equation. Cars that get less than 30MPG are part of the equation. People that insist on living 45 miles from work are part of the equation. Instead of "pretending" to solve the problem with a near meaningless bandaid, real solutions should be offered.

Heck, the price of Groceries are too high. Wine, Beer and Liquor are sold in many Grocery Stores. Why not cut the Federal Liquor tax?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Q- How will the Wright affair affect Obama?
A- Obama who?

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | April 29, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

What is with all the haters on the Hillary side? This man talks of hope and the future, and all Clinton can do is attack him. She is like Judas or Pontius attacking Jesus!

Posted by: bo diddley | April 29, 2008 6:32 PM | Report abuse

"the word hate is sounding really stale and uncreative."

That's because you have shown time and again that you can not be trusted with an original thought. You are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not - a campaign expert/guru. Then, when people call you on your garbage, you play the victim card.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

"I am fully in favor of aggressive incentives to get better mpg and new cellulosic ethanol and other technologies in the pipeline ASAP. This is at least a start and a little relief for average Americans during a tough summer. I fail to see why the liberals don't agree."

actually that was one of the details of HC 2006 energy speech posted above. Incidnetally I didn't find 'any conservatives' doing anything but filibustering raising the CAFE standards by a mere 5 mpg in 10 years with a promised veto by Pres 28% if it did pass, proud, so you might want to check your facts first.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Sch-wank

Posted by: Huh | April 29, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama got what he deserved. you play with fire and you'll get burned..The true Obama is coming out.

Posted by: SBvoter | April 29, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I've never thought much about Wright's comments...I guess it's because I have a lot of 'crazy uncles'. But I was disturbed by an article discussing Hillary's earmarks for a similarly 'controversial' pastor. I can't find anything on factcheck to refute or confirm. Does anyone have info on this?

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080124d.html

Posted by: MelB | April 29, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Vote for me and I will knock 30 cents off the price of gasoline for two months.

This will actually save the gov't money. I will buy poor people brand-new Highlanders with the money.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton | April 29, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Wow - what will you all do when the election is over? Or better still what did you all do BEFORE the campaign season, I pop in here from time to time and notice the same posters all day long. Whatever you do to support yourselves, please sign me up - I need that gig.

Just kidding, I know you all get paid to post here. Cheers

Posted by: Huh | April 29, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

those hate sites like googling Obama and the Illinois Senate and posting a story form that hate site USA Today. You are right they are pretty hateful and my post from the NY Times, another hate site as you call it, setting out HC's April 2006 Energy speech.

I find it really fascinating that absolutely everything posted here over the last 2 months that takes issue with any position of Sen Obama is immediately branded as Hate by his supporters. OK I posted HC's snipets from the NYTimes showing HC's 2006 detailed energy policy and position in support of Harry Reid's windfall profits tax and asked where Sen Obama stood 2 years ago when he is imploring D Senators to help him move his windfall Profits tax. Exactly how in the world would you brand that as hate? Seems like your side could become a little more original in response, the word hate is sounding really stale and uncreative.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Gharza,

The only thing that I have found throughout the campaign, is that Barak only touches on issues superficially. His policy proposals are sketchy and not well publicized- he tends to use a lot of sloganeering and rhetoric, which is why the didactic speech format works better for him than the debate or town hall formats, which he avoids if possible.
This is unlikely to be a problem in the US as we are a television culture and like our politics, like everything else, easy and served up to us. The problem for him is when we know so little really about who he is or where he stands, decisions such as a long term mentor/guidance relationship which he wrote about extensively in Dreams of My Father will define him if the relationship with Rev. Wright turns out to be the most we know about his "judement"- especially since judgement was an essential part of his early attacks on HRC.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Great Jedi analogy - however the Obama people are like warped cult members on a lonely planet worshiping a false god.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

"That's a lot of Gas. Since you indicate that it is only going to and from your job, it means that you are not a traveling salesman. And that's more than 22 Gallons of gas at current prices. That's about 4 gallons a day, or 80 miles (40 each way) at a poor gas mileage rate of 20 MPG. "

Congratulations, Demand Equation. You can multiply!

Actually my commute is about 45 miles one way, so my MPG is a tad better than 20... but for an all-wheel drive Subaru, it doesn't do too badly in the blizzard conditions up here in the north country, so I'm willing to sacrifice a little mpg for that.

I am fully in favor of aggressive incentives to get better mpg and new cellulosic ethanol and other technologies in the pipeline ASAP. This is at least a start and a little relief for average Americans during a tough summer. I fail to see why the liberals don't agree.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

This Obama-Wright episode is a joke - its a set-up contrived by the Obama campaign.

You all are going to harass me and complain, then one day you will read a book by one of Obama's people in which he will tell the whole inside story.....

Then you will say, OOOHHHHHH Words of Wisdom, Words of Wisdom, Words of Wisdom.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

olf minivans and suvs if that clarifies my point that these folks can't just simply hop over to their local Toyota dealership and but a Prius. Incidentally they would likely need a Highlander hybrid that costs $15,000 more and gets lousy mileage if they have 3 kids they can't likely shove them into a Prius even if they could afford to buy one.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I've gone through here, and you contradict yourslef over and over again. Cutting and pasting straight from the HRC.com you would think there would be a cohesive message.

And you obviously have been hitting those hate sites. You did all that research on Obama and his IL record in just a few minutes? Whatever.

Posted by: Unity '08 | April 29, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

The recent delusional outbursts from Rev. Wright may turn out to be Obama's salvation. The candidate no longer need feel constrained to moderation by his relationship with Wright, and can freely vent his visceral reactions to the speeches. Wright had it wrong: Obama was not criticizing him because of political considerations, he was doing his best to hide his revulsion out of respect for his old friend and pastor. The level of rancor paranoia and betrayal that Wright is now exhibiting makes allows Obama to denounce him in the strongest terms, which is what Democratic voters have been eager to hear. Wright's poison may turn out to be the antidote to this festering scandal.

Posted by: Bruce M | April 29, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, you're beginning to sound like Mike Brooks. That's not a good thing.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | April 29, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

and Obama waits for a week later and says me too whatever HC just said. I'll throw in a free beer with Hillary's tickets, but I need to check with Axelrod first and see if we can first raise that on our web site or maybe we can just arrange to have the Colts moved to one of our friendlier caucus states.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

So come on here Barack Hussein Obama and
Michelle Obama your only about 20years to
late,when it comes to be shocking by your
mentor "Uncle" Rev Wright and his crazy
antics and racist remarks..So did you have
a nice 20 year long nap here Obama? Vote
No Way! No To Barack Hussein Obama!
And then throw both Barack & Michelle Obama
under the bus with Obama's grandmother
and Rev Wright! Its the American Way!

Posted by: Ralphinphnx | April 29, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

exactly what are those "HATE" blogs. Oh, we understand. ANY comment that disagrees with you is HATE. got that message from you a month ago, it doesn't intimidate us any more today then it did in March.

personally mark I think the country is sick and tired of hearing from Rev Wright. Seems like Obama is way too smart to have associated with him especially disturbing are Wright's praise of Farrakan which I can assure you will be poisenous to him with the elderly Fla voters in the fall if he is the nominee.

Obama knows he needs to be as far away from Wright as possible. He knew that 2 years ago when he announced for Pres. and put him on his advisory committee, Wright even warned him back then how his association could damage his campaign, he just didn't listen and thought no one would notice. I know Obama supporters don't want to hear that but his campaign and potentially the D party are now in a box if he is still the nominee and its doubtful he or his campaign has a real answer on how to effectively deal with it. Wright is like getting the flu that keeps coming back no matter how many antibiotics you take.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Hillary gets up tomorrow, reads that tickets for Indianapolis Colts games are priced out of reach for middle-class voters.

Five minutes later, the HC press release - "I vow to give everyone free Colts tickets!"

McCain, an hour later - "Me too. Hey, when did the Colts leave Baltimore?"

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman: 20 year old minivans are not SUVs. Please make a note of that.

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 29, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Rabid Obama supporters remind me of the weak-minded creatures that are susceptible to Jedi mind control: "These aren't the ones you're looking for..." says Obi-Wan, followed by "These aren't the ones we've been looking for" by the Empire's storm trooper (sorry if you're not into Star Wars).

Does anyone really think that Obama could take his family to church led my Rev. Wright for 20 years, and only now - now that he is running for president of all the people, that is - believe that what Wright has to say is so very wrong? It's a no-win situation for Obama - what does it say about a president's judgement to be hoodwinked so completely, or the flip side is what does it say about a president's judgement to bring his family to church to listen to such a man? The bloom is off the rose, Barack. You don't represent change - just the same old political "do and say anything to get votes" dishonest politician.

Posted by: CoffeeTime | April 29, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

PatrickNYC posts (relative to the 20 years "issue"):

"But to compare any of them to Obama not knowing who wright was or preached is not a good example."

I posted this in the Obama Strikes Back Blog, but it is just as relevant here:

With all of this righteous indignation, none of you who are and have been screeching about "20 years" has ever managed to state EXACTLY how this 20 years will influence anything that Obama would do in office. How EXACTLY would it influence hsis decisions on health care? How EXACTLY would it influence his decisions on gas prices? How EXACTLY would it influence his decisions on Iraq/Iran/Middle East? How EXACTLY would it influence his choices for the Supreme Court? How EXACTLY would it influence his decisions on anything?

And, how do you KNOW that it would have the effects you claim it will? Unless you a) can state what the actual, direct negative effects of this relationship will have on any decision-making Obama would be making as POTUS and b) how you KNOW that those negative effects are guaranteed (I'd even accept a demonstration of their likelihood), your whining is no more than hot air. The reality is that Wright has no more direct effect on anything that Obama does than anyone's religious advisor.

Based on the last 7+ years, I think everyone should be a hell of a lot more worried about another Cheney than I would be a Wright when it comes to direct effect on presidential decision-making. Wright as Svengali is a completely bogus "argument" - and, if it wasn't before, it sure is now that he's proven incapable of considering anyone but himself. Nancy Reagan's astrologist will, in the course of history, have had a lot more influence than Wright will.

Awaiting your (or any of the others supposedly all worked up about the relationship and Wright's influence on Obama going forward) answers.

Posted by: jk5432 | April 29, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Vote for me and I'll give you 14 cents and a hot dog.

Posted by: reynolds | April 29, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"People who drive their kids hundreds of miles per day in SUVs don't need lower gas prices(they don't that would certainly be news to them). They need to change their lifestyles so that they drive less, and drive more fuel-efficient cars. "

that is great idea blarg, tell single moms driving 20 year old minivans, and struggling to feed their kids that they need to go out and buy a $26000 Prius. Your post may be precisely why your campaign is not connecting with middle class blue collar voters; it is exactly that attitude, just go out and buy a new hybrid that doessn't work with voters. Why don't you pass that recommendations to your campaign that your energy solution is a need for voters to change their lifestyle while Detroit continues to build new vehicles that get 12 miles per gallon. Perhaps you haven't noticed we are in a recession with collapsing home prices, and exploding food prices. Buying a new Prius is likely not at the top of concerns of most voters right now.

incidnetally now that the $2600 hybrid tax credit is gone (and should be extended) hybrids now cost $4-$5,000 more.We bought our's under the tax credit but the show rooms are not exactly full right now with new buyers of any sort.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

As always, Obama was honest in saying what he believes and why he believes it. I can understand why he feels both angry and sad, but Wright brought this on himself.

Posted by: Tom J | April 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

AIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

SPLASH!

Vote for Hillary!

Posted by: Minnesota Bridgegoers Against a Gas Tax | April 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'll give you 14 red American cents for every gallon you buy if you vote for me!

That's 14 cents folks! You can buy yourself an, um....

Posted by: McClinton | April 29, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

My Response to Blarg


OK however Obama really hasnt served in the US Senate - as soon as he got to Washington he went on a book tour - then he started running for President. The only subcommittee he heads, Obama has never held hearings.


Illinois basically has one US Senator.

It would actually be nice if Obama actually served as a Senator for a number of years before he ran.

Seriously look at his resume - compare it to other people who are similar.

There isn't much special about Obama, there really is not.

If he had 10, 15, 20 years in the Senate and been around the block a few times, I'd say OK, you have a point.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I think there is another story which actually might sway voters strongly: the Gas Tax Holiday. McCain and Clinton are for it, Obama is against it. But guess what: Most voters are against it. This might very well sway some people. After all, your average person cares more about driving on safe roads than what Wright said. And it is clear that the Gas Tax Holiday will make the roads less safe.

Posted by: Brendan | April 29, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

"no what I am holding against him is his saying Illinois needed a 6 cent gas holiday in 2000 at $2/gallon and 2% inflation, but that Americans don't need a 20 cent gas break in 2008 at $4/gallon and exploding food prices.

Its called Hypocrisy sorry you can't grasp that."

Again, you are cutting and pasting from the usual Clinton sponsored hate-blogs. What the hell do you know about Illinois in 2000, and its circumstances? Are you so dumb as to think that Americans are going to the polls to vote for Illinois' senate? Do you think that an Illinois state senator in 2000 and the US President in 2009 are on the same footing?

Again, the only people who are falling for this flim-flammery are the deadenders. When Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, send his campaign an e-mail about your "ideas."

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

The topic is Rev. Wright.

I have never seen a candidate hoist upon his minister's petard before so I have no way of predicting how it will play.

I cannot believe that a former President of the Harvard Law Review who is a "Distinguished Lecturer" in Constitutional Law at Chicago shares any of the more fanciful political beliefs of Rev. Wright. On the other hand, I suspect that BHO's original political base was in that church and that he could not leave it readily after he outgrew a direct dependency on it, assuming that he did, indeed, outgrow that dependency.

So BHO is stuck with his choice and how badly he will be hurt by it depends on how much the audience of voters comes to think that he is in thrall to his former pastor, I guess. It is certainly fair commentary to link them [Proud, I thought you were heavy handed about the linkage because I got the point the first time].
------------------------
I have learned from y'all today that all three candidates want to close Gitmo, not just McC, and after the "command influence" story this morning I am glad for that.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 29, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

How long Obama will have to put up with Dr Wright's statements partly depends on how often the MSM continue to make hay with the Dr.s disapproval statements and put- downs of one of his own. Since when does the shepherd of his religious flock kick out one of his own sheep because that sheep doesn't agree with everything stated politically in or out of the church? Dr. Wright has the right to correct any misconceptions of snippets looped all over the Internet but he does a disservice to his group and his African-American citizens in these States by slamming Obama. In most respects the MSM did not condemn the black church though many in the biggest papers called him names without justifying their use. Dr. Wright reminds me of black students throwing a race card at a white teacher who justifyingly reprimands a black student(s) for classroom misbehavior. The reprimand can be necessary but for some reason it has to come from a black teacher. Then the teacher that is black and reprimands someone of his/her own ends up being called "oreo". All black churches are not the same as Dr. Wright's. I've been to a few in Minneapolis. Yes, their sermons were of a different style and their songs didn't come from Europe--usually. But they were not political and these were heard during the civil rights era of the 60's. My black husband from Harlem would not have appreciated Dr. Wright's remarks esp. Monday's.

Posted by: abuelita | April 29, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Gas tax holiday will NOT be offset by the steady increase in the price of oil. The price will will continue to rise - and since the price for a barrel has risen by over $50 dollars in a few months, how long do you think it will take to absorb teh .18 cents.....heres a hint, one day.

Posted by: Huh | April 29, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

With the recent Obama gaffe that showed what a elite snob he in fact is when he insulted ordinary Pennsylvanians who 'cling' to their guns and their god and religion during hard times and look down on imigrants who are not like them, I suspect that there are a lot of white voters that would like to take back their vote. Indiana just might go for Hillary by almost 10%, a la Pennsylvania. North Carolina though shouldn't be a problem though. With about half of all Democratic Party North Carolinian voters black, there's no way in he** that he could lose. Blacks always vote for a brother or sister even when that candidate has had "problems". Ray Nagin, Wilson Goode, Sheila Jackson, Marion Barry, and more come to mind.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom - Put down the pipe, John Wilkes Booth and Oswald were lone gunman, the government is not, I repeat not stealing your brainwaves and your ideas for bran muffins. And the moon is not made out of cheese.

Posted by: Huh | April 29, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

WordsOfWisdom: Perhaps you aren't aware that Barack Obama is currently serving in the US Senate. Can you find hundreds of other senators to compare him to?

Posted by: Blarg | April 29, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

It's Muskie's crying jag!

Posted by: da' Square Wheeleman | April 29, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Enough already with the Rev. Wright-a-thon. Obama has clearly repudiated him, can we please move on. People are dying in Iraq, the economy is in the toilet. And yes, Obama is out talking to voters about these issues every day.

Posted by: Ruth | April 29, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

People who drive their kids hundreds of miles per day in SUVs don't need lower gas prices. They need to change their lifestyles so that they drive less, and drive more fuel-efficient cars. That would save them far more money than 3 months with gas 5% cheaper.

If cutting the gas tax is a good idea, why not go further? Why not subsidize the price of gas? If you don't care about the national debt or the highway trust fund, the government could easily make gas cost $1 per gallon again. That would be great! Then we'd be able to continue wasting an increasingly scarce resource, and continue causing terrible environmental damage that future generations will have to deal with. But at least we can afford to drive Hummers!

Posted by: Blarg | April 29, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"Pandering, politcal BS and cynical - sort of like proposals for free healthcare for everyone?"

And sort of like proposals for $5,000 tax CREDITS (not deductions) for everyone? That would be the McCain healthcare plan.

Let's just hand out money to everyone. Whoopeee!!!!!!!!!! Par-TAY!

Posted by: Spectator2 | April 29, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

JNoel002 - "It doesn't. But hey, if I can squeeze a couple of votes out of an innane plan then why not. This is exactly the kind of "politics as usual" Obama is talking about."

And strangely enough, Obama has supported curtailing adding additional oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a measure to help (in agreement with McCain of all people), knowing that that miniscule amount will do absolutlely nothing to help.

Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

I can see how the Obama supporters are taking this as some kind of "Smear" by The Media and just cannot find anything wrong about Obama continuing to LIE and be the FRAUD he has always been. The TRUTH is finally beginning to be revealed and it hurts.

Posted by: lylepink | April 29, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Comment above is meant for Obama people - if you are not, in all honesty to yourself, willing to vote for President for a person who has an identical resume as Obama but is white, then you are a racist because the color of skin appears to be your sole motivation.

It is that simple.

So lets find some Harvard law grads, who were Law Review, lets find some with similar experience as Obama - there are probably hundreds of people with similar resumes and let's compare these people.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 wrote:
"Kate - You're not much of a student of humans, are you? How many tiomes have you read of a mass murderer who lived with a wife and children, attended a church, had friends, who had NO IDEA of what he did?"

and then wrote:
"I truely and genuinely hope your husband or partners rip your heart out"

Seems this person knows of what he/she speaks, concerning mass murderers hiding in our midsts. Truely (sic) and genuinely, indeed!

Posted by: Mr Peabody | April 29, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"Right. Hold it against him because the Illinois state senate can't pass laws that affect the rest of the country."

no what I am holding against him is his saying Illinois needed a 6 cent gas holiday in 2000 at $2/gallon and 2% inflation, but that Americans don't need a 20 cent gas break in 2008 at $4/gallon and exploding food prices.

Its called Hypocrisy sorry you can't grasp that.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

If I prmoised people $2.00 a gallon a gas would people vote for me? No? Okay, how about I use my $120 million dollars and buy everyone a free gallon. Any takers?

Hello? Is anyone listening?

Posted by: Hillary Clinton | April 29, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

ProudtobeGOP wrote:

I spend about $90 per week in gasoline to get to my job and back.

My Comment:

That's a lot of Gas. Since you indicate that it is only going to and from your job, it means that you are not a traveling salesman. And that's more than 22 Gallons of gas at current prices. That's about 4 gallons a day, or 80 miles (40 each way) at a poor gas mileage rate of 20 MPG.

ProudtobeGOP wrote:
By your estimate, the federal tax on one gallon of gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. If 5 bucks a week in savings at the pump means one more bag of groceries I can buy, then IMO that's a good thing for the economy and my pocketbook. I'm sure most average Americans would agree.

My comment:
Most average americans don't have a 40 mile commute in each direction. And most Americans can't buy a bag of Groceries for $5 bucks. That will not even buy a loaf of bread, a half-gallon of milk and a pound of pasta.

ProudtobeGOP wrote:
Truckers who spend over $1000 at each fill-up will save a lot more. They will save approximately $61.00 every time they gas up. That would probably be the difference between going bankrupt and losing their truck vs. being able to continue hauling the nation's freight.

My Comment:
Part of your reasoning problem is that you assume that the Oil Companies will not raise their prices to take into account the tax savings. One of the reasons that Obama knows that this likely will not work is the experience in Illinois. The price of Gas in Illinois is always about X% over the price in Indiana. When Illinois suspended the gas tax, the percentage didn't change. The Oil Companies simply kept more of the money.

The problem is two fold:
1. The Weakness of the Dollar (this is the primary problem) which has driven the cost of oil up significantly. As noted on CNN, there is a direct tie with Oil prices and the dollar; and
2. Demand. The demand also impacts the price and demand hasn't been cut. (And guys that use 22+ gallons per week of Gas are really hurting the rest of us).

ProudtobeGOP wrote:
Again, this is short-term to stimulate the economy and give people a break and reduce the worry which is bad for the economy as well.

My Comment:
Its pandering which will result in more profits for the oil companies, a decline in the quality of roads and bridges and provide no appreciable help for anyone.

Posted by: Demand Equation | April 29, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"she is promising something impossible to deliver"

like energy independence?"

Let's get this straight - Hillary and her ideological brother McCain promise a tax "holiday," and that equals "energy independence"?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Dream on scrivener.....

The reason that Rev. Wright is at the forefront of media news is that the media knows that Obama has an 80% chance of winning the nomination and a 55% chance of winning the presidency. Obama is not only the front-runner in the Democratic nomination by the front-runner for President.

The focus is on Obama to step up and handle the heat. Obama still leads Hillary in post-Pennslyvania primary superdelegate endorsements. Obama only needs to win Indiana and North Carolina in the midst of this Wright controversy to have superdelegates move in droves to him.

Posted by: AJ | April 29, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama's campaign scripted this whole episode from Friday until today -


what a complete joke.

The question remains: who is the real Obama????


The real Obama is the first half of the speech in Philadelphia - the one who believes in Black Liberation Theology.

This is an unbelievable set of lies sent out to the American people to TRICK people into voting for Obama - you Obamaniacs are so entranced that you are probably cheering right now.


how pathetic.

This is serious stuff. We are talking about the future of our country here. To entrust our country to Obama would be wrong.

Let me put it this way - lets take a white social worker with the same resume as Obama - would you vote for that person for President????


If you answer is no, then you are a racist.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Again, this is short-term to stimulate the economy and give people a break and reduce the worry which is bad for the economy as well.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 4:56 PM

The $30 figure is base on the "average" not an individual assessment. And you said it best, $5 woohoo!!! economic stimulus! Not exactly. The Government needs to continue to fix and maintain roads; not give me an extra 6 pack everyweek this summer. And you talk about Truckers saving more, which is true, but again only for three months...you and Leichtman still fail to address what is going to happen after the Holiday is over and reality sets back in. Old people still won't be able to afford to drive and Truckers will still be on the brink of bankruptcy. So, basically your saying live it up while you still can this summer, but by fall welcome back to the real world? How is this any sort of solution. There is no stimulus, no solution. It is pandering for votes. A summer Holiday is going to help no one. With the Holiday, gas prices will be where they are now, so if Old people (leichtman's favorite disparaged demographic) and truckers can't make ends meet now how does enacted the Gas Holiday change anything? It doesn't. But hey, if I can squeeze a couple of votes out of an innane plan then why not. This is exactly the kind of "politics as usual" Obama is talking about. Shortsighted planning and leaving Americans with no results. But keep shouting its "advantages" till the cows come home; it won't make it a good idea.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 29, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

My mother is a staunch Catholic. When the awful pedophilia stories were being exposed in Boston ten years ago, she choose not to leave the church. She knew that it was the priest and not the whole church and community.
With all this brouhaha over religion, it makes it so easy to be an agnostic.

Posted by: BBD | April 29, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"5 bucks a week in savings at the pump means one more bag of groceries"

that is going to be a very small bag.

but to truckers and mom's driving their kids 100 miles a day in their suvs and minvans, every little bit helps, just don't expect a very big bag of groceries.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

chadibuins - "AND, that is NOTHING like what Wright said--listen to his whole "God Damn" sermon--he makes some valid points in his comparisons"

The Unabomber made a valid point or two also. I have never been at white church where there was any hate spewed like you describe. And I have attended Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopal, non-denominational, among others. I guess I am just lucky.

Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

"But I doubt Sen Obama thought through its implications in 2000 while being a young State Senator who did not have to deal with national policies that effect all of us and not just his friends in Illinois"

Right. Hold it against him because the Illinois state senate can't pass laws that affect the rest of the country.

Can I hold it against Hillary that she didn't hold an impeachment trial against Saddam Hussein in 2002? She should have done that instead of listening to whatever lines Bush and Cheney were feeding her.

Try again.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

"she is promising something impossible to deliver"

like energy independence?

Somehow I thought your campaign was the one promising Hope, sounds more like your campaign is now promising cynicism; oh that is impossible, woe is me nothing can be done about the price of oil. Actually her detailed policies were issued 2 years ago before we had a real problem with $4/gas is more hopeful then your response, that nothing can be done.

and note the day of her energy speech and call for a Windfall Profits tax. April 2006, what did that have to do with Indiana May 2008, and once again where was Sen Obama in April 2006 when few Dems supported Harry Reid's Windfall Profits tax?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, the fear in motorists eyes will not be aided by paying $3.20 per gallon rather than $3.50 or so. I can't believe you and your candidate can say that with a straight face.

Posted by: bokonon13 | April 29, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom, Valmont, Leichtman, do any of you speak Russian?

Esli govorite, znachit, chto ia mog by Vam skazat':

Poshli Vy na hui. Vy vse glupie mudaki.

Posted by: Uncle Joe | April 29, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Dr.DidLittle - "This nonsense about the federal tax on gasoline is pandering, political BS, and yet one more cynical attempt by Clinton ...to get the worker vote."

Pandering, politcal BS and cynical - sort of like proposals for free healthcare for everyone?

Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Obama's press conference today should really put an end to the media spectacle. He unequivocally denounced Wright in light of Wright's recent remarks. It is now for the American people to decide if - and in what way - the controversy will affect their votes.

Posted by: WashEsq | April 29, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Any objective person who's observed human behavior even a little bit can tell you this guy is savoring his 15 minutes of fame -- and flogging a forthcoming book -- and he doesn't give a s**t who gets hurt by it. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's that simple.

Posted by: jac13 | April 29, 2008 3:27 PM


I agree with Jac13 and subsequently PatryickNYC and yes leichtmen.

There are no conspiracy theories.

That being said, it is still damaging to the Obama campaign and may be the deathknell. either way, I'd rather thsi happen now that way, either he can weather the storm, secure the nomination and beat McCain; OR HRC can come from behind with a convincing win (or 2--IN and NC) and take the nomination with supers . . .and go on to beat McCain.

However, I think Wright is very similar to a lot of other crazy pastors, both white and black. I heard his whole speech--his comment about following Obama to the White House was about holding him accounatble not "moving in". and as afr as Proud's comments--I have heard PLENTY of HATE and blind rhetoric form many of my white pastors as well--just because it is "mainstream" in some places to gay bash or be homophobic is not an excuse. AND, that is NOTHING like what Wright said--listen to his whole "God Damn" sermon--he makes some valid points in his comparisons.

And finally, this is Obama's former pastor, NOT Obama. My former pastor was just arrested on sexual misconduct, but that has no bearing on me, my beliefs or other members of the church. One of the things I find most refreshing since joining a predom black church as opposed to teh predom whit churches I was raised in; is that it is no where near given that congregants BELIEVE or AGREE with everything the pastor says--even if they are not vocal about it. From my perspective, black churches see the pastor as doing his job and rendering his message; they get the applicable parts from that message and discard or disagree with the rest. It is NOT a lock-step tradition and is much more open to debate among congregants than ANY of the white churches I have been a part. Maybe that should be said?

Posted by: chadibuins | April 29, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

JNoel writes "And what is $30 going to do to stimulate the economy?"

Why are you are fixated on this artificial number of 30 bucks? Let me tell you, I spend about $90 per week in gasoline to get to my job and back. By your estimate, the federal tax on one gallon of gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. If 5 bucks a week in savings at the pump means one more bag of groceries I can buy, then IMO that's a good thing for the economy and my pocketbook. I'm sure most average Americans would agree.

Truckers who spend over $1000 at each fill-up will save a lot more. They will save approximately $61.00 every time they gas up. That would probably be the difference between going bankrupt and losing their truck vs. being able to continue hauling the nation's freight.

Again, this is short-term to stimulate the economy and give people a break and reduce the worry which is bad for the economy as well.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

actually jnoel the proposal makes a heck of a lot more sense today at $4/ gallon and with exploding food prices and inflation today, then it did in 2000 at $2 gallon and 2% inflation. But I doubt Sen Obama thought through its implications in 2000 while being a young State Senator who did not have to deal with national policies that effect all of us and not just his friends in Illinois.
Curious if any Obama supporter has seen the fear in motorists eyes over pump prices. When I filled up this week I ran into 2 poor people who's old broken down vehicles were out of gas, pushed to the station and they were truly begging for money to put a gallon of gas in their car so they could get home. I have never seen anything like it since the 80s gas lines. Those who do not appreciate the magnitude of fear of motorist are truly out of touch, its implications are real and its likely the number one issue right now with voters and the general population,likely exceeding the war and healthcare.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Patrick NYC - Belittle it all you want, but it is a true account of the heartbreak and betrayal a man and two little girls are suffering right this minute. Their story is repeated by the tens of thousands every day. Everything from murderers to wayward spouses is there. If you cannot understand that, then I feel very sorry for you, but much sorrier for anyone who might someday depend on you.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 4:51 PM
------------------------
You missed my point, I was not 'beliitling' anyone. I just said it was a stretch to compare the two. I read the papers, I know about the creep in Austria who held and raped his daughter for 24 years, right under his wife and families nose.

But to compare any of them to Obama not knowing who wright was or preached is not a good example.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 29, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Wolfowitz: 'The Occupation Of Iraq Ended In June 2004′»
At a Hudson Institute event today, Iraq war architects Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, as well as Dan Senor and Peter Rodman, reconvened to celebrate Feith's new book, War and Decision, which tries to explain the failures of the Iraq war as just failures of other people.

Wolfowitz said Feith's book is "valuable" because it "demolishes" the "well-nurtured myths" about the Pentagon's execution of the war. In his book, Feith claims the "chief" mistake in Iraq was "maintaining an occupation government for over a year." Wolfowitz agreed, adding that the "occupation" in fact ended in 2004:

The fact is, however, that we did end up with an occupation authority for a full nine months, and I'm afraid that the label occupation sticks to us even to this day, although the occupation ended in June of 2004. Doug considers that the biggest mistake we made.

Posted by: the neocons are truly insane | April 29, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Obama's chances of winning either Indiana or North Carolina are falling by the day. And, his comments today won't change that. Over the past few weeks Obama has shown himself to be arrogant, elitist, dishonest and weak. Why didn't Obama just use either the brushing his shoulders routine or the finger routine in response to Wright? He seemed to think those were sufficient response after his debate debacle and loss in PA. Obama is a loser.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Patrick NYC - Belittle it all you want, but it is a true account of the heartbreak and betrayal a man and two little girls are suffering right this minute. Their story is repeated by the tens of thousands every day. Everything from murderers to wayward spouses is there. If you cannot understand that, then I feel very sorry for you, but much sorrier for anyone who might someday depend on you.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"This is wher HC was in 2006, promoting a Windfall Profits Tax before it was even a glimmer in Sen Obama's eyes. She actually stood with Reid when the issue was not as important as it is today and risky for dems to support. That is what is called being proactive a leader rather than a follower."

Once again, Leichtman not thinking things through. If you bothered, you would note (like the rest of us figured out long ago) that HC is always a "proactive leader" (read: pandering triangulator) in election years. Then, as now, she is promising something impossible to deliver in the hopes of picking off a few voters with their heads up their a$$es.

Keep trying.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

This is a complete joke - look the Democrats might be stuck with Obama - this was a desperate attempt to convince the people on Planet O that Obama is viable again.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I was using "15 minutes" figuratively. I'm hoping, though, that the media will at some point tire of this guy's circus act and start talking about issues. (But, then, they never have talked about issues, so maybe I should just be hoping they start talking about some other accident by the side of the road.)

Posted by: jac13 | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM
----------------------
I think Andy Warhol was also using 15 minutes the same way, as I meant it. If not then Wright would be over a week by now. Sadly very little about issues ever makes it through the crap that the media feels is what the public wants to hear. Kind of like that old Don Henely song, Dirty Money.

Prepare yourself, the wright story will be around as long as Obama is. I doubt either will bow out next Tuesday, unless it is a washout for either. That does not look likely. If Hillary does beat him in both the press will eat him alive. Plus there is the Rev Wright factor. Is he going to go quietly into the night? I doubt it.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 29, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

It's simply a good cop/bad cop ploy by the Obama campaign in cahoots with Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright's repudiation of his former disciple is intended to create sympathy for Obama.

Posted by: valmont | April 29, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

We are being played by Obama and his campaign - THEY sent Rev. Wright out there to say these things just so Obama could denounce them.


What a joke.

The key point to bring home from this is Obama is just like any other politician - give me a break.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Wright's decision to speak out certainly puts Obama on the defensive, and it's impossible to imagine Obama not losing three or four points in Indiana because of this.

Ironically, though, Wright shooting off his mouth so vocally at this particular moment does demonstrate quite vividly that Wright has no connections whatsoever to the Obama campaign. To revive a controversy just as it was fading from the news is evidence that Wright is not all that close to Obama. He certainly didn't consult with the campaign about doing these public appearances, nor does he seem deeply concerned whether or not Obama takes a hit because of him. Wright is more interested in Wright than in Obama, but it will still take a lot of work on Obama's part to spin this as evidence that Obama and Wright are not all that closely connected.

Posted by: blert | April 29, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey Leichtman - this is your candidate!

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857


Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

its great that Sen Obama NOW supports a windfall profits tax. My question is where was Sen Obama on April 6, 2006 when Sen Reid begged him for his support.

This is wher HC was in 2006, promoting a Windfall Profits Tax before it was even a glimmer in Sen Obama's eyes. She actually stood with Reid when the issue was not as important as it is today and risky for dems to support. That is what is called being proactive a leader rather than a follower.

May 23, 2006

Clinton's 50 By 25....
Senator Hillary Clinton was well attuned to her audience when she paused, during her major energy speech at the Press Club this morning, to apologize for "probably a more wonkish speech than many of you had anticipated."

Fittingly so, because even the most enthusiastic wonks have a tough time digesting talk of "cellulosic ethanol" and "biomass fuels" before lunch.

Thankfully, the centerpiece of Clinton's speech was easier to
grasp: her "fifty-by-twenty-five energy initiative," as she put it, would reduce America's dependence on foreign oil by fifty percent by the year 2025. Clinton compared her proposal to the Manhattan Project; given the specificity and detail with which she explained it, a nuclear engineering degree might have helped her audience.

Clinton's speech provided a sharp contrast to the Bush administration's recent cautious rhetoric about energy and gas prices, both by countering their generalities with specifics (plenty of those!) and rebutting their notion that little can be done to change things by asserting otherwise and then, in a style that would do her husband proud, backing up those assertions with detailed plans to boost everything from wind power to biofuels to a Strategic Energy Fund she hopes to create by introducing legislation today

"(it will be funded partially by a two-year windfall profits tax on oil companies, who she also whacked for not providing ethanol pumps at gas stations)"

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

And THIS is Clinton's ex-pastor... a child abuser. No lie.

http://www.uticaod.com/homepage/x1637676857


Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Why is the media keeps harping/lumping Rev. Wright with Barack. e can no More control the man than your momma. As Rev. Wright said: he is not running for office Obama is. I am not judging Obama for Wright's conduct or arrogance. I am judging Obama. Don't you know who's behind the Press Club invitation to Rev. Wright? It was the supporter of Hillary Clinton. Check it out.

Posted by: bigben1986 | April 29, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

THE AUDACITY OF JEREMIAH ANOINTS HILLARY -- UNLESS...


Obama is toast, burnt around the edges by his own fire-and-brimstone preacher.

If this is the way he sizes up his "friends," how would he avoid being hoodwinked (or okee-doked as Barack might put it) by true enemies like Amedinahjad?

I predicted here that Obama would announce after Indiana and North Carolina that he's suspending his race to accept a Hillary offer on the ticket as VP.

Now I think Hillary will announce shortly after Indiana and North Carolina that Colin Powell will be running as her VP on a unity ticket.

Ah, the audacity of audacity. Thanks a lot, Jeremiah. You did for Hillary what she couldn't do herself -- knock Obama totally off the radar.

Barack: make peace with Hillary real fast, real soon -- or grow the kahones to throw your delegates to a dark horse like Edwards or Gore -- because your quest threatens to devolve into a quixotic footnote to history.

-- So sayeth the Scrivener

Posted by: scrivener | April 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Actually blarg you once again have no idea what you are talking about. You do understand that Senator Obama once proposed a Gas Tax Holiday exactly like this one in the Illinois Senate.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 4:11 PM

Leichtman, in 2000 Hillary opposed the Gas Holiday. But I guess she wasn't in the business of "connecting" with Indiana voters then.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 29, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

This nonsense about the federal tax on gasoline is pandering, political BS, and yet one more cynical attempt by Clinton (and once again aligning herself with McCain) to get the worker vote. If she was really concerned about lowering the cost of gas for the summer holidays, she'd go after the oil companies that are making record profits in this gas crisis. Now, there's where we can save some real money. Every cent of the federal tax is needed for the repair of roads and bridges. Removing the fed tax for even a minute is a very stupid and irresponsible idea.

Posted by: Dr.DidLittle | April 29, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

I have a freind in Germany, a very nice man, who has been married for more than 10 years with two adorably little girls. He just found out his wife has had a secret life since even before they were married - she makes XXX rated movies with guys she just picks up. A freind of his, in Germany, happen to see her "work" on "youporn" and brought it to his attention. He had no idea at all! This is a constant of all human interactions, you can NEVER know the heart of anyone else. To sit back and cast judgement, to call into question someones's lack of insight, is despicable and dishonorable beyond comprehension. I truely and genuinely hope your husband or partners rip your heart out and your friends and associates sit back and do to you what you are trying to do to Mr. Obama. You are beneith contempt. I say this as someone who isn't even an Obama supporter.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 4:22 PM
--------------------------
A bit of a stretch there brooks. Making porn on the sly and speaking from the pulpit of a church every Sunday. Not to mention that he considered him not just his spiritual advisor, but his 'Uncle'.

Obama at first said he never heard the hate speech, then he said he did and di not agree with it. My brother is a born again preacher, his views are known to my entire family, even though we do not go to his church, he is as Wright says, a pastor all the time.

Wright baptised his children, married them, and who knows how many times had late night talks about everything from A to Z. Obama says he seldom stays in DC on weekends, prefering to be home with his family. I have yet to hear anyone ask him if he was at the survice after 9/11, if not where was he? Not in DC yet.

Nor have I heard anyone ask Michelle if she heard any of his rants. Again anyone who thinks this is going away has had a bit too much of the Obama juice.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 29, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Mr Vision, the man that foresaw all, years in advance, when it came to Iraq, appears to finally be coming around on the Wright thing. This is what suddenly became clear to him earlier today.

"What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

So....20 years of spiritual advising, You Tube GD America clips, a minister that has been a national leader in promoting theological education and the preparation of seminarians for the African-American church who's mission statement is based upon systematized Black liberation theology that started with the works of James Hal Cone, and statements like "When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli [to visit Muammar al-Gaddafi] with [Louis] Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.", and he had no idea.

The following is from the nyt:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

In the 16 years since Mr. Obama returned to Chicago from Harvard, Mr. Wright has presided over his wedding ceremony, baptized his two daughters and dedicated his house, while Mr. Obama has often spoken at Trinity's panels and debates. He has said that he relies on Mr. Wright to ensure "that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible." He tends to turn to his minister at moments of frustration, Mr. Wright said, such as when Mr. Obama felt a Congressional Black Caucus meeting was heavier on entertainment than substance.

"The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification," he [Obama] said in a recent interview. He was not at Trinity the day Mr. Wright delivered his remarks shortly after the attacks, Mr. Obama said, but "it sounds like he was trying to be provocative."

"Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through," Mr. Obama said. "He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality."

Despite the canceled invocation [when Obama began his campaign], Mr. Wright prayed with the Obama family just before his presidential announcement. Asked later about the incident, the Obama campaign said in a statement, "Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church."

In March, Mr. Wright said in an interview that his family and some close associates were angry about the canceled address, for which they blamed Obama campaign advisers but that the situation was "not irreparable," adding, "Several things need to happen to fix it."

Asked if he and Mr. Wright had patched up their differences, Mr. Obama said: "Those are conversations between me and my pastor."

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama's audition for the ultimate establishment job.

"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Mr. Wright said with a shrug. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen."

Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Patrick,

I was using "15 minutes" figuratively. I'm hoping, though, that the media will at some point tire of this guy's circus act and start talking about issues. (But, then, they never have talked about issues, so maybe I should just be hoping they start talking about some other accident by the side of the road.)

Posted by: jac13 | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"apparently blarg and bonjedi are convinced that only deadenders believe that a gas tax holdiay is a good idea. "

Once again, Leichtman is right and anyone else with the sense God gave a rabbit is wrong.

You are trotting out a proposal by Obama that would be in effect in Illinois EIGHT FREAKIN' YEARS AGO and compare it with the short-sighted pandering Clinton is attempting with the whole country today? Are you serious? And do you expect us to believe that you have managed to perform this research all by yourself, without Ctrl-V'ing some spin machine?

Tell us again why anyone should take you seriously? What's next, a junior high essay from Obama on 1970s gas lines?

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I am totally shocked to learn that Senator Obama once supported a 6 month Gas tax holiday that saved a mere 6 cents per gallon for his Illinois consituents:

"The Facts
When gas prices hit a shocking $2 a gallon in Illinois in the summer of 2000, politicians demanded action. As a Democratic State senator, Obama joined other lawmakers in pushing through a six-month suspension in the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline. While there was some talk about making the moratorium permanent, the tax was reinstated in January 2001, after Illinois Governor George Ryan told lawmakers that the state could not afford to continue the tax break."

apparently blarg and bonjedi are convinced that only deadenders believe that a gas tax holdiay is a good idea. You might want to reconsider slurring your own candidate that way.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure the truckers who pay over $1000 every time they fill up don't think the Gas Tax holiday is all smoke and no substance. They will benefit from the tax holiday, and the economy will benefit as well.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 3:46 PM

Yeah, truckers are really going to be thanking you for three months of "savings". But what are they going to do long term? Gas prices aren't going to go back to $2 per gallon, so what do you propose they do after the holiday is over? They will be back in the same situation as before the holiday. And what is $30 going to do to stimulate the economy? That is what the average driver would save. The economy isn't going to benefit and truckers will still have all the same problems come September. So, tell me again how this isn't a non-solution targeted at votes?

jonel, bonjedi fine if you don't think that even getting a small reduction from $4 gas prices means anything to Indiana families and truck drivers means anything.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 3:38 PM
I didn't tell you it was worthless, I told you it was worth $30 bucks. You (and your candidate) are trying to pawn off a miniscule savings as a "real" solution. But what happens to Indiana families when the holiday is over and the winter hits? And you talk about lowering food costs, but you won't see those savings for months if at all. And even if you do see the "savings" it will only be for a short time frame, but no one is going to lower costs because they know it is only a temporary savings...so it is going to be pocketed. And actually Senator Obama did make a proposal: He (like Senator Clinton) wants to tax oil companies on their "windfall" profits, but he doesn't plan on wasting the money on passing a lunch for taxpayers. I didn't ignore that part of Hillary's plan, it was simply the same as what Obama proposed to do. The difference was in what to do with the money; instead of ctrl+ving every Hillary email perhaps you should do some homework on the other candidates proposal before you go running your mouth.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 29, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Kate - You're not much of a student of humans, are you? How many tiomes have you read of a mass murderer who lived with a wife and children, attended a church, had friends, who had NO IDEA of what he did? How often do you read of a spouse, married to someone for 20 years or more, who are completely and genuinely surprised to find out that that spouse was seeing a protitute, having an affair, addicted to pronography, was a pedophile, etc. etc. I have a freind in Germany, a very nice man, who has been married for more than 10 years with two adorably little girls. He just found out his wife has had a secret life since even before they were married - she makes XXX rated movies with guys she just picks up. A freind of his, in Germany, happen to see her "work" on "youporn" and brought it to his attention. He had no idea at all! This is a constant of all human interactions, you can NEVER know the heart of anyone else. To sit back and cast judgement, to call into question someones's lack of insight, is despicable and dishonorable beyond comprehension. I truely and genuinely hope your husband or partners rip your heart out and your friends and associates sit back and do to you what you are trying to do to Mr. Obama. You are beneith contempt. I say this as someone who isn't even an Obama supporter.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I'm confused. You're bringing up Obama's position from 2000 as if it's some kind of counterargument. I oppose reductions in gas taxes. If I had lived in Illinois in 2000 and been aware of Obama's plan at the time, I would have opposed it.

In 2000, Obama supported reductions in gas taxes. He was wrong. At the same time, Hillary opposed reductions in gas taxes. She was right. But 8 years later, they've switched positions. Now he's right and she's wrong. The fact that Obama was once wrong does not change the fact that Hillary current is wrong, or the fact that you're defending her (and John McCain's) terrible economic policy.

Posted by: Blarg | April 29, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

The owner of a California shooting range who trained military personnel for Blackwater Worldwide said yesterday that "he will no longer work with the North Carolina company because of the notoriety of the government contractor." Marc Halcon, owner of American Shooting Center, has been a Blackwater subcontractor since 2002, but now says he is "tired of being dragged into this thing" and no longer wants to be "associated with what he said was Blackwater's questionable business practices.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

So like I read somewhere else today that
"If your tired of all this Obama Drama,
then Vote NO to Barack Hussein Obama,
and put an end to that Drama here and now!"

Posted by: Claudine | April 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

leicthman, You're trying to put words in my [computer] again. I never said the Minn bridge repair money was pork. Just because the Democrats in MN wanted to pay for a new football stadium for their beloved Vikings instead of funding the I-35 repairs is not the fault of pork politics, it is the fault of liberals run amok and now their state is in the Red fiscally speaking, whereas neighboring North Dakota has a surplus becuase of the R legislature, thank you very much.

The Gas Tax Holiday will boost the economy in it's short summer timeframe enough to recapture any lost revenue, and besides all the liberals are sniveling about the recession now, so why don't you want to prevent a little pain over the summer months and help out the truckers who are the backbone of our domestic supply-and-demand?

Furthermore, the Depression of 1929 was caused, in part, by raising taxes and tariffs during a time of recession. The democrats both want to raise taxes to pay for their bloated social programs / Hillarycare 2.0. The timing couldn't be worse for an idea like that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

"You also are aware that Hillary's plan is far removed from McCain because she actually pays for the lost revenue and likely in creases revenues for the infrastructure you rightly claim needs repairing,by linking it to a winfall profits tax that Harry Reid and countless other Senators supported, a Justice Dept investigation of price gouging and detailed long term sollutions."

This is absolute gibberish; it is apparent that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I would guess that you are cutting and pasting from the Clinton website, but there are too many typos for that.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

At least based on watching the local news, I don't think the Wright issue is going to make that much difference in North Carolina. I am also not convinced that the remaining primaries will make that much difference unless one of them deviates significantly from expectations. I suspect the national polls are a much bigger factor. Had Obama won Pennsylvania, that would have demonstrated that he was clearly the choice of the major segments of the Democratic Party and given him the nomination. But his losses in Ohio and Pennsylvania show that key segments of the Party have not accepted him and have left significant questions about his candidacy. The big remaining issue is what the uncommitted superdelegates are thinking. The obvious reality is that Obama will not be able to win just with the votes of delegates selected in the primaries. Clearly the party leadership is going to encourage the superdelegates to make an early decision in June. But the reality is that the convention is the process for resolving an undecided nomination selection. To the extent that questions continue to surround Obama and his prospects to win in November, the chances grow that the superdelegates will want to wait to use the convention for the decision on the nomination and for an attempt at achieving some level of party unity.

Posted by: dnjake | April 29, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 2:35 PM

see the cult of obama lives!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

" If Obama had mentioned eliminating the gas tax, I would have thought he was out of his mind. (Some people are capable of disagreeing with what their preferred candidate says; I know you may find that hard to believe.) Fortunately, he responded to the issue correctly, by listing the many flaws with the Hillary/McCain plan.

It doesn't matter who suggests it; cutting the gas tax is a bad idea( EXCEPT WHEN OBAMA SUPPORTED THAT EAXCT SAME PLAN!) The country's infrastructure is in shambles, and you want to take away the money used to repair it."


Actually blarg you once again have no idea what you are talking about. You do understand that Senator Obama once proposed a Gas Tax Holiday exactly like this one in the Illinois Senate.

You also are aware that Hillary's plan is far removed from McCain because she actually pays for the lost revenue and likely in creases revenues for the infrastructure you rightly claim needs repairing,by linking it to a winfall profits tax that Harry Reid and countless other Senators supported, a Justice Dept investigation of price gouging and detailed long term sollutions. My guess blarg: if Obama loses Indiana on Tuesday b/c of this hot button issue that actually connects with Indiana families, by next week you and the Obama campaign will figure that out, embrace it and claim it was your idea to start with exactly like he did with immitating 2 weeks later, Hillary support of a boycott of the Olympics. Always a day late in his ideas.


Incidentally where does your candidate stand on a windfall profits tax seeing that he has already taken $2 million in oil company bundled contributions? His silence leads me to believe that he can run tv commercials with oil company contributions but then is perfectly OK when Exxon and Shell earn $10 billion in a quarter.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. In the midst of this "scandal," and answering Hillary's NC super, Obama bagged one more.

Still waiting to see the fruits of that PA victory.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama's being dealt a tough hand here. Speaking purely from the standpoint of an observer, it's a fascinating moment, and I feel there's much to learn about the dynamics of race relations in America from this episode. Wright's bellicosity is stunning. Turning his thing into a street fight a few days after the Sean Bell case was closed with a conspicuous lack of noise from the black community in New York is a strange irony. Perhaps Wright's uncanny feel for what will infuriate potential allies outside the black community matches Obama's talent for building bridges, for being everything to every community. It's also ironic that Wright is setting out to "educate" white America on what "[black] pastors do" at a time when the standing of figures like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have really sunk to a pretty sad state. I'm curious, really. Does Jeremiah Wright have any (younger) contenders out there who will make a different case for what "pastors do." By the way, enough with the "do what they do" rhetoric. I feel like I'm listening to sports radio when I hear that. But back to Obama, your heart has to go out to the guy, even if you (like me) didn't vote for him

Posted by: NoahK | April 29, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton and John McCain may disagree, but Jeremiah Wright shouldn't be allowed to be the sole decider for the rest of us as to who will be our President. Now that Wright has enjoyed his weekend in the spotlight, grandstanding and putting on his show, it's time for all of us to move along and engage pressing big real problems.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"if you don't think that even getting a small reduction from $4 gas prices means anything to Indiana families and truck drivers means anything. It will likely be the defining issue in Indiana next week and voters don't agree with you."

Finally, the admission that we have been waiting for, that the Hillary plan has very little substance, and any ideology is really mouthing what voters want to hear.

Second, if the disastrous manner the Clinton campaign has squandered its ample resources is not enough to convince you of its financial ineptitude, then perhaps the naivete on display that believes oil companies are going to leave that 15-25 cents per gallon on the table should do the trick.

Unless you are a deadender like Leichtman who believes everything she is told by Wolfson & Ickes.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Any objective person who's observed human behavior even a little bit can tell you this guy is savoring his 15 minutes of fame -- and flogging a forthcoming book -- and he doesn't give a s**t who gets hurt by it. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's that simple.

Posted by: jac13 | April 29, 2008 3:27 PM
---------------------------------
I agree he's whoring himself and his beliefs to promote himself and his book deal. I disagree that he's got 15 minutes though, he's past that in the weekend alone. He is not going any where until Obama is done with, even then he will be like any other addict hooked on a drug, in this case the spot light.

It was very clear by his calling Obama a liar(politician), saying he was following Obama to the White House. He has it out for Obama. I guess the chickens have come home to roost.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

There was much of what Rev. Wright said yesterday which needs to be understood as the world view of a significant number of Americans. Distrust of the US government is not limited to African Americans. There was a lot of distrust expressed by Rev. Wright, but is it not understandable, especially from someone of his generation?

It is disappointing that the media is focused not on the merits of Wright's arguments, but on the venom with which he expresses some of them. The US government HAS LIED to its citizens, repeatedly, and still does, ... repeatedly, and with little accountability imposed by the media or the underinformed public.

One word which Rev. Wright used often yesterday, but is rarely seen today in press reports, is "reconciliation". That is the part of the message on which Obama should not turn his back. Only if old hatreds are acknowledged and new paths sought on common ground between old antagonists can real change come about with regard to some of the bitterest issues which Rev. Wright expresses only too well.

Many Americans are enthusiatic about the possibility of Sen Obama becoming the next president, including myself. However, if he simply expresses the outrage expected of him as the polically correct thing to do, and fails to place himself in the breach as a an agent of reconciliation, the voice of reason from a new generation of leadership, he will disappoint those who place so much hope in him. And he will disappoint himself.

Posted by: DEfarmer | April 29, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Patrick NYC writes "I was too busy wondering why the Rev Wright was working so hard to help Hillary win the primary."

More likely he's just trying to pay for that big new mansion he's building in the upper-crust rich white people suburb of Chicago.

Opportunists like Wright are a dime a dozen, but usually they're not quite as abhorrent. It is, no doubt, amazing to many samll town Americans who cling to guns and religion, that Obama has chosen to cling to this particular brand of religion and theology.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

proud exactly where does McCain makeup for the lost revenue from his gas tax proposal since you have previously posted that you are convinced that funding for the Minneapolis Bridge and the 9th Street Levies is nothing more than pork and since your side now hypocritically has the use of the filibuster that you so much advocated being nuked, can use to now block when the libs try and replace that lost roads and bridges revenue. Unless perhaps you and Senator McCain are now somehow comfortable with more bridges falling down into rivers.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman: If Obama had mentioned eliminating the gas tax, I would have thought he was out of his mind. (Some people are capable of disagreeing with what their preferred candidate says; I know you may find that hard to believe.) Fortunately, he responded to the issue correctly, by listing the many flaws with the Hillary/McCain plan.

It doesn't matter who suggests it; cutting the gas tax is a bad idea. The country's infrastructure is in shambles, and you want to take away the money used to repair it. Oil company profits are at record highs, and you want to open the door for them to raise gas prices even higher. We're running out of oil and destroying the environment, and you want to encourage people to drive more. It's a bad idea. I don't care whether it was proposed by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or Al Gore; it's still a bad idea. But you're incapable of admitting any fault in Hillary. So now you're stuck defending John McCain's economic policy. Enjoy that.

Posted by: Blarg | April 29, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

The Rev hasn't changed. Obama would like us to think that a. he and his wife and kids were not paying that much attention for the 20 years he was closely associated with the Rev and his church, or b. he, Obama heard it all but didn't think he meant it and anyway he needed those votes, or c. we are just too picayune about the whole thing and we should just shut up about it and get on with what HE thinks is important. Note to Obama (and the rest of you whiners) THIS is important. It speaks to his judgement, his character, that of his wife's and above all his truthfulness. The fact that it has taken so long for him to pull off this "denouncement" is telling. It is just not believable. Why did he not react viscerally when the clips of his spiritual mentor were first aired exposing for us all to see the vitriol and hatred spued out by this man of religion and peace. The clips were incidentally quite old and easily available. No excuses here Obama. You knew the guy then and he hasn't changed and I doubt that you have. You felt the pressure and saw that picture of the White House fading and, well, even if it does cost you a bunch of African American votes, you are going to dump the Rev. I for one am just not buying it. It is politics, pure and simple. Just like the Rev said.

Posted by: Kate | April 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Just how is Sen Clinton going to pay for all of the earmarks she is seeking, especially when she is calling for an additional shortfall disguised as a gas tax to buy off voters that will get her through the nomination season?

We would do better to put unemployed guys to work repairing or replacing our bridges that are about to come tumbling down. You can feel downright insecure about using them.

Posted by: jobless old white vet | April 29, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"Rev. Wright, Part Deux"

Part Deux? I don't know much French but I would have to say it seems like its Part Catorce. This is the Obama rewrite of the Never-ending Story. Those of you that think this is all Hillary's doing need to find some other punching bag because there is nobody but Obama to blame for this catastrophy. Is Clinton doing everything in her power (and the power of her people) to help pile on? Sure (she is in campaign mode afterall)! But for heavens sake, Obama has botched the Wright story from Day one. Day One. Mr. Vision never had the foresight to see how damaging this could be. I'm not sure he does yet when he says "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago." 20 years ago! How about the person who was spiritually advising you 2 years ago? Make no mistake - this is a critically bad thing for the Obama campaign. He basically has no choice but to invoke the Mibrooks defense - just like the Hillside strangler's girlfriend, I had no idea. That puts him waaaaay off message...

Posted by: Dave! | April 29, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27, I know that, now read

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/clinton-booster-organized_n_99129.html

Read the update. And its source, http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0408/Press_Club_President_responds_Reynolds_pitched_Rev_Wright_two_years_ago.html

The Press Club speaker's committee selected Wright at the suggestion of Barbara Reynolds.

And Ms Reynolds had also suggested Wright speak there 2 years ago, but the Press Club didn't go with her suggestion at that time. That was before Obama's candidacy.

Wright, not the Clinton camp, dug this hole. The more he speaks, the deeper that hole is going to get.

Posted by: Arby | April 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

To Gharza,

I don't know what you mean by toughing the flesh. You say that campaigns ebb and flow, and that it is ebbing at the moment. This is the problem. I am actually an Obama supporter, I contributed to his campaign, I know that he is a breath of fresh air, but, his campaign is spinning it's wheels right now. If he was to win North Carolina and Indiana next week, it would all probably be over. Yet, he makes few, if any, campaign stops. Hillary makes many many more each day. Given that every vote counts, he needs to do more. On April 26, she made 6 stops, he made none, on the 27th, she made 4 stops, he made 2, on the 28th, they each made 3, on the 29th, she has 9 planned, he has 2, on the 30th, she has 8 planned, he has 1, in other words, just go and shake people's hands, keep it simple, round up votes. I only say this because I am frustrated knowing that if she or McCain wins, it is status quo for a long time to come. Capiche?

Posted by: gerard | April 29, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

jac13 thank you for understanding that Wright is plain and simple an ego maniac who cares little about the presidential campaign and his effect on it and he is more mesmorized by his own speeches then caring his effect on either candidate.

Apparently there are many conspiracy theorists here who want to blame everything bad happening to the Obama campaign(or anything bad in general) is HC's fault with absolutely nothing to back up their paranoid attack, other than their visceral dislike of Hillary and Bill.

Thank goodness there is some reason here today.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

JNoel002 writes: "The Gas Tax Holiday is basically a quick fix that is more smoke than substance,"

and then issues this clarification:

"Just to clarify the national gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, 24.4 cents on diesel."


I'm sure the truckers who pay over $1000 every time they fill up don't think the Gas Tax holiday is all smoke and no substance. They will benefit from the tax holiday, and the economy will benefit as well.

With folks like Nancy Pelosi saying she's considering a second economic stimulus package, I would think more liberals would be on board here. You're just playing partisan politics, and the truckers et al be darned. Your argument about roads and bridges is all hot air- it's a holiday, not a retirement.

The Gas Tax Holiday is a short-term boost designed to help consumers and the economy. Why do you have a probelm with that? Because John McCain thought of it first, that's why.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 29, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm confident from reading his books, listening to his speeches, and reading outside reportage about him over the last 15 months that Barack Obama didn't hear stuff like this for 20 years. I don't even know if he went to church every week and if so, who was giving the sermons (it's a big church with multiple pastors).

But clearly most of the sermons were the usual church topics, based on everything that's been actually reported, as opposed to speculated. The original Wright soundbites were carefully culled from decades of recordings as the worst of the worst, so by definition they did not represent the normal or average sermon.

Obama wrote at length about the church and its pastor in a much more balanced way in his book. I believe that general description is accurate based on the many other respected black Chicago professionals who attend and have attended the church.

What's happened now is that Wright is furious and embarrassed by being "YouTubed" (for conservatives, think how Senator Allen felt about the macaca moment -- yes, he said it, but he didn't feel it represented his whole career). Wright seems to prepare his remarks carefully, but whenever it comes to unscripted question and answer, he's acted out, or lashed out, at the press and (indirectly) at Obama.

I can understand wanting to defend one's reputation but he's done that now and, to put it mildly, he should stop hogging the spotlight. At least, hopefully, the press will now stop harassing the sick and elderly whose names are in the Trinity Church bulletin in order to get a juicy quote -- he's certainly provided enough fodder to make that unnecessary now!

Posted by: Fairfax Voter | April 29, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone stopping to think why the Republicans are working so hard to help Hillary win the Primary?

Posted by: boomer babe for Obama | April 29, 2008 3:22 PM
-----------------------------
No I was too busy wondering why the Rev Wright was working so hard to help Hillary win the primary.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | April 29, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

The two latest polls in Indiana already show Clinton up by 9 and 8 points, respectively. I think Indiana is a lost cause for Obama. He certainly isn't going to be gaining traction in the days to come. The only questions is whether this Wright fiasco and the NC governor's endorsement of Clinton put NC into play. If Clinton wins NC or even brings the margin down to low double digits, she could actually pull this who thing off.

Posted by: JSnapper | April 29, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

jonel, bonjedi fine if you don't think that even getting a small reduction from $4 gas prices means anything to Indiana families and truck drivers means anything. It will likely be the defining issue in Indiana next week and voters don't agree with you. Hillary has a short term and long term plan to stemming rising gas prices including her call for a full Justice Dept investigating of oil company price gouging and windfall profits taxes that Harry Reid has supported and opening of the strategic reserves which you conveniently ignore. You understand that it will likely take 5-10 years for any long term energy policy to have any real effect. So your position is that we do nothing in the interim. That 20 cents not only effects truckers but the run away prices for food. We all know that had Sen Obama made that proposal rather then spending every day fighting off the firestorm over Rev Wright you would be praising it. And if some of it involves politics, what in the world do you think making a succesful run for the President is about?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Arby - Here is what an investigative reporter found about that....

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I am usually not a suspicious individual but I cannot help believing that either the Clintons or the RNC are behind the "Reverend Wright Tour". It reminds me so much of the Nixon White House and all their dirty tricks. I feel this is doing nothing but harm to Obama's campaign. And once again the media are spinning it for all it's worth and failing to focus on the real issues. I have a question: If Obama does eventually withdraw - can he give his delegates to John Edwards? I will never, ever vote for HRC. I will leave the box on the ballot blank.

Posted by: Lisa St | April 29, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

To jac13


EXACTLY That is exactly what happened.


Obama knows that under the proportional system he will get a certain amount of delegates anyway next week.

Obama is looking toward Nov - those are where his numbers have been bad.

In addition, the superdelegates are beginning to look at Obama's Novemeber numbers and have been wondering.

This was actually a good move by Obama.

HOWEVER - It proves that the "great" speech last month on race DID NOT work - that it was a horrible speech.

Also, all this crap about Obama helping race relations in this country - that is crap too - Obama is really setting BACK race relations in this country.

WE STILL don't know the REAL Obama - that is the scary party

See we can't buy into Obama without really knowing him.


SEE that is what EXPERIENCE is all about, not only does the person know more about about things - but we KNOW more about the person.

Obama really doesn't have it.

Posted by: Words of Widsom | April 29, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

To jac13


EXACTLY That is exactly what happened.


Obama knows that under the proportional system he will get a certain amount of delegates anyway next week.

Obama is looking toward Nov - those are where his numbers have been bad.

In addition, the superdelegates are beginning to look at Obama's Novemeber numbers and have been wondering.

This was actually a good move by Obama.

HOWEVER - It proves that the "great" speech last month on race DID NOT work - that it was a horrible speech.

Also, all this crap about Obama helping race relations in this country - that is crap too - Obama is really setting BACK race relations in this country.

WE STILL don't know the REAL Obama - that is the scary party

See we can't buy into Obama without really knowing him.


SEE that is what EXPERIENCE is all about, not only does the person know more about about things - but we KNOW more about the person.

Obama really doesn't have it.

Posted by: Words of Widsom | April 29, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Seed of Change:
Meet me outside in a dark alley you little, weak, piece of sh*t.

Spreading lies will come back on you before you know it. And it won't be pretty.

Posted by: scaredcat | April 29, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

P.S. - Obama picks up two more supers today, and is now within 21 of HRC. That makes 7 since the so-called "Armageddon" of PA -- to Hillary's 3. Why can't she "close the deal" with the superdelegates?

Posted by: jac13 | April 29, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks27, there is no evidence that the Clinton campaign set up the Press Club event with Wright. His engagement there was suggested by someone who may be, or may not be, a Clinton supporter, and the rest of the Press Club agreed to invite Wright.

Even if Hillary herself set this up, I ask you: did the Hillary Campaign pen Wright's speech, or his remarks to the reporters afterwards? Did they schedule him on Bill Moyers? Did they write his sermons and then videotape them?

I actually don't take offense at Wright's ideas, except for the supposed govt-AIDS link. And then the big one, that criticism of his words was an attack on the black church. This will turn off many people, because it fits into the notion that African Americans will always play the victim/race card to get out of a jam. That's not how I believe, but I'm a realist and know that whether or not Wright is actually speaking truth, he is a liability to Obama. And this is not Hillary's doing.

And just when Obama is being criticized for being "too black" (re: uncomfortable to 'typical' white Americans) via his church association, he's also under fire from Sharpton for being too white, in his remarks about the NYC police shooting case.

Unity is a nice concept, but welcome to the real world.

Posted by: Arby | April 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The crackpot, half-baked thinking represented by some of these blogs makes me really worry about this country.

So, conspiracy theorists, let me get your theory straight. Obama is scrapping to hold a lead in NC and get ahead in IN, both crucial to his momentum and the ultimate success of his campaign, but he and his campaign STILL contrive to have Wright start popping off a week before the vote, just so he can spend two days distracted by it and ultimately make himself look good by denouncing him?

And you say we Obama supporters are drinking koolaid?

Frankly, I have the same amount of contempt for those who say the Clinton campaign set this up. Any objective person who's observed human behavior even a little bit can tell you this guy is savoring his 15 minutes of fame -- and flogging a forthcoming book -- and he doesn't give a s**t who gets hurt by it. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's that simple.

Posted by: jac13 | April 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

boomer babe for Obama

What do you think? Seriously what do you think is going on here???

I think the Reps think that the Obama people are delusional.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

It is entertaining, isn't it??? However there is NO WAY that the Obama people did not stage Rev. Wright going out there and saying all this crazy stuff.


It is an opportunity for Obama to get away from Black Liberation Theology.

Michele Obama put most of the speech from last night together - then the last part was written by someone from the campaign.

The speech had two separate tones - and contradicted itself in many places.


Hence two authors who did not agree -

ANYWAY


Obama's numbers were going down, and he wanted a chance to get out - in effect Obama wanted to change his answer from last month.


just to remind everyone: that is answer that all these people called the greates speech since Gettysburg - you people are all completely nuts, you know that? yea Obamaniacs are nuts.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone stopping to think why the Republicans are working so hard to help Hillary win the Primary?

Posted by: boomer babe for Obama | April 29, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

When did the phrase "throw under the bus" become everyone's favorite term?! I never heard it until recently. I suppose it's descriptive, but when everyone is using the same term it gives the impression that their entire opinion is just a repetition of what they've heard someone else say.

Posted by: Bus Rider | April 29, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Wright, under the US Constitution, has the right to speak his own truth. The fault here lies with the media, which is happy to be prodded by the Hillary campaign into a guilt-by-association smearing of Obama. Obama has chosen not to return the favor, despite plenty of shady characters in the Clintons' past AND present.

Rev. Wright will not be moving into the White House if Obama wins the presidency.

If Hillary wins, Bill Clinton WILL be moving into the White House. Talk about baggage!

Posted by: barbara | April 29, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone who has watched the Clinton's and Carville over the years understands full well that thy are behind this. The most likely explanation is that Wright's book deal involves lots of advanced money, some smoke blown in his ears by various Clinton operatives, and requires public appearances about now. A river of raw sewage and duplicity, coupled with empty headed cheerleaders, is a hallmark of every Clinton campaign."

Just when it looked like you were reverting to normalcy, you produce this.

Watch out for black helicopters!

Posted by: mibrooks is nuts | April 29, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Here is my post from earlier today:


Obama messed up his speech last month - in fact the speech hurt Obama.


I sense that the Rev. Wright comments this weekend may have been a set-up - get Wright out there making outrageous remarks so Obama can say:


1) see how crazy this guy Wright is?


2) I do not believe in what he says.


3) Obama now can LIST all the things he disagrees with Rev. Wright on.


It is an opportunity.


I think it is a set-up.


To be specific, I think the Obama campaign cooked this whole thing up - sending Wright out there, so Obama would have an opportunity to be a more moderate voice.


Hey, its just a theory.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

This whole thing is a set-up. Clearly, Wright is working with the Obama campaign.

This is the background: Obama's people saw the damage in the numbers for the fall campaign, so they basically decided to change Obama's answer from last month.


They cooked up this plot: send Rev. Wright out there again, have him say all sorts of outrageous things, and then allow Obama to say those are all wrong.


I saw this coming.


You are all being played.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 29, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Until recently, the MSM has given Obama a free ride. It is interesting to see the Obamaniacs' reaction now that the media has been forced to actually examine at last one part of Obama's background. Who was it who said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant?"
-Wm Tate
www.atimelikethis.us

Posted by: Wm Tate | April 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I meant "I just want to add that ..."

Posted by: mnteng | April 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Blarg, bondjedi, Joe, JNoel, et al. that the gas tax holiday is silly pandering. I just want to add is that the Fact Checker did a story on this very topic today.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/a_holiday_from_gas_prices.html

Posted by: mnteng | April 29, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

If anyone really believes Obama never knew what Wright said, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you.

Not only did he know it, he agrees with it completely. Just wait until his President, he'll impliment Wright's Master Plan to a T, and give the Jews what's coming to them.

Posted by: B. Lloyd | April 29, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Update:

Obama has thrown Wright under the bus for vote just in last few hours.

Michelle and kids need to watch their mouth :-)

Obama did not take them to Wright's hate message, they just went with him :-)

They better not speak what they heard for over ten years or since their birth.

Posted by: Seed of Change | April 29, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you're lucky that the media is focusing on Reverend Wright instead of Hillary's ludicrous gas tax idea. (Actually it was McCain's idea. But Hillary, as usual, takes her cues from the Republicans.)

The gas tax holiday would theoretically lower gas prices by $.18 per gallon. That saves the average driver about $10 per month. It's meaningless. But it actually wouldn't lower prices that much, because oil companies would just raise their prices to compensate. So we'd all end up giving more money to Exxon, and less to the government trust fund that repairs our highways. And the tax holiday would encourage more driving, speeding up the rates at which we deplete the world's oil and pollute the atmosphere.

But naturally, you support all of that, because it was suggested by Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Blarg | April 29, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Just to clarify the national gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, 24.4 cents on diesel.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I said many months ago there was something BAD WRONG with this guy [Obama] every time I saw and heard him speak. I could not understand it myself, and now after just seeing him again a few minutes ago telling more LIES, I am beginning to understand how much of a FRAUD he continues to be and who and what he really thinks. These past couple of weeks has been very telling, and appears to show how accurate I was about him.

Posted by: lylepink | April 29, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama has 20 year relation with Wright and funded him over these years

Obama's father knew him for 1-2 years and was polygamist deadbeat father

Obama's mother knew him for about 10 years and Obama was not by her dead bed as he was looking for votes

Obama Wife's Michele knows him for just over 10 years and hates this country like Wright

Obama's grand ma is the only person who knows Obama over a longer period of time than Wright.

Obama's threw that grand mother under the bus once he won "white elite" votes and saved Wright to get "black" votes.

Wright say's "Obama is a just a politician who has to do anything to get votes". Amen.

Dick Cheney did not push his lesbian daughter under bus to get vote.....

...but Obama will do anything to get vote

Posted by: Seed of Change | April 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

So...let's recap....saying America deserved 9-11 and had it coming was not bad enough for Barack to distance himself from his pastor. But as soon as electoral chances are in trouble he throws him under the bus. Sounds like Barack cares more about winning than he does his own country.

Posted by: Mitch | April 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Of all the substantial issues, why does this dominate all network news channels for two straight days? It's because the general public is obsessed with tabloid junk! I do not care what his pastor says or does. It is totally irrelevant to the job at hand. Barack Obama is a solid candidate for president, and if he is not good enough, maybe we should just let Bush run for a third term.

Posted by: Finefettle | April 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The official press wants blood and until they drain Obama of all his energy, they will not stop with this "no history" about Rev. Wright.
They don't talk about the war, health care, gas prices, John McCain gaffes, economy, etc.
Unfortunately, for this people, Obama has the path for the nomination and to remove him, they will have to show their faces to the sun.

I am sick of this coverage.

Posted by: Jorge | April 29, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

HOW COME NO ONE TALKS ABOUT CLINTON AND HER VAUNTED CATHOLIC SUPPORT. THEIR PRIESTS ARE A BUNCH OF DRUNKEN PEDOS!

AT LEAST WRIGHT WASN'T DIDDLING LITTLE BOYS! I SUPPOSE THE GOP WOULD LOOK THE OTHER WAY ON THAT, IF HE DID IT WHILE WEARING AN AMERICAN FLAG ON HIS LAPEL!

THIS IS WHERE SEX IN BATHROOMS AND WIDE STANCES GET YOU - MORAL EQUIVOCATION!

Posted by: MISTER CAPS | April 29, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Well, it has been verified that the Press Club fiasco was organized by the Cltinon campaign -
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/louis/index.html

And, as for the annon. post at 2:41 and similar ones - "...Can you tell me that in the 20 years that you are going to the congregation you never question his beliefs..." - there are plenty of surprised people out there who have been married to someone for 20 years or more and find out they have had a secret life. The Hillside strangler, even, had a girl freind and a child, *most* mass murderers had freinds or spouses who had no idea of what they were really up to. I suspect that many of those questioning how Barak Obama couldn't know about Wright are in precisely the same boat. All of this SEWAGE is part and partial to the racist campaign by the Clinton's and the empty headed feminist's who volunteered to be so much cannon fodder.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, shooting from the hip (again) without thinking through the ramifications of the Clinton spin.

People are paying through the nose for gas, and oil and gas companies know it and are aware of the upper limits of what people pay. So the government gives a temporary reprieve from 20-30 cents a gallon, and oil companies adjust their prices upwards. Voila - a handout from Hillary and McCain to big oil under the guise of "helping the consumer," while bridge and road upkeep suffers.

Good work, Leichtman. Gas companies may have reached their limits on price points, but the Clinton campaign is not even close to maxing out your gullibility.

Posted by: bondjedi | April 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

People question why Obama didn't leave a church pastored by Mr. Wright---but don't seem to care that catholics have no problem attending a church, where the upper tier of the church found it more important to protect the brand of catholicism and its priets than it was to protect children. Why are catholics still attending chatholic churches and listenting to the current pope who may have had some knowledge about what was happening with the musical chair predator priests?

Posted by: Afia | April 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The gas tax holiday is almost meaningless. The federal tax on gas is only about 10 cents a gallon, so the gas tax holiday would lower prices from $4 per gallon to $3.90, which would be meaningless to most budgets. It would, however, hurt the highway fund which serves to build neew roads and improve old ones. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me! You have to be really cynical to promise a present like that to the voters!

Posted by: Joe | April 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

No matter how vociferously Obama condemns or separates himself from Wright going forward, it is clear that the only reason he's doing it is to salvage his political hide.

But it doesn't answer the two most important questions:

Why did he stay 20 years? And why did he and his wife bring their children?

After one service in Wright's church, I would have walked out, chucked to myself, and said, "What a nut!".

Why didn't Obama? It's a question of judgement.

Posted by: JoeCHI | April 29, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Again can an Obama supporter explain why Rev Wright seems determined to destroy the Obama candidacy and why Sen Obama does not appreciate voter outrage over $4 gas prices. Both make absolutely no sense.
Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 2:29 PM

I can't explain what Rev. Wright's deal is, however, I can take a stab at gas prices.
The Gas Tax Holiday is basically a quick fix that is more smoke than substance, but typical "politics as usual" Washington. Obama opposes the Holiday because he believes it will save the average driver around 30 bucks, but do nothing to actually solve the problem. In the meantime, roads/highways which are normally repaired with that money go unmaintained. So, to say that he does not appreciate the outrage over $4 a gallon gas is incorrect. He simply doesn't support a quick short-term (and shortsighted)fix that isn't going to bring actual relief to average Americans. It looks like another political ploy to garner votes.
Not that we would expect anything less from the Clintons.

Posted by: JNoel002 | April 29, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

In the latest SurveyUSA, the one poll that has been consistently accurate thus far, has Hillary now only 5 points behind in North Carolina. Governor Easley just endorsed Hillary. How many politicians will now want to associate themselves with Wright through Obama. They would be just setting themselves up for attacks from Republicans in future elections. I think Wright could take Obama down. If Hillary wins North Carolina and Indiana this race will dramatically change tides. Take a stand! http://whereistand.com/Opinions/45133

Posted by: Brianr | April 29, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I really question Senator Obama's take om his pastor of 20 years. Mr Wright is the same person from 20 years ago and his beliefs are the same. Can you tell me that in the 20 years that you are going to the congregation you never question his beliefs? Why only now?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 29, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is more EVIL THAN SATAN. Barack Obama MUST distance himself from him rithg now.

Posted by: Bruno | April 29, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

The media declares war on Obama and refuses to talk about anything else but Rev. Wright. No issues, no substance, it's all about doing whatever it takes to destroy the Democratic nominee -- and it's pretty transparent.

Posted by: Rightwing media poodles | April 29, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who has watched the Clinton's and Carville over the years understands full well that thy are behind this. The most likely explanation is that Wright's book deal involves lots of advanced money, some smoke blown in his ears by various Clinton operatives, and requires public appearances about now. A river of raw sewage and duplicity, coupled with empty headed cheerleaders, is a hallmark of every Clinton campaign.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | April 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I am not a supporter of Barack Obama but today I have to feel for him. It seems that his spiritual mentor and self described friend has just thrown him under the bus in much the same way Obama threw his grandmother under the bus in his speech on race relations.

Rev. Wright seems to think his 15 mins of fame is more important than electing Obama President. And listening to Rev. Willie Wilson in DC supporting Wright and saying how he will move race relations forward in the nation is a joke as well. Wilson who has done his share to poison race relations in DC for years.

When one reads all the Obama flaks in the Post from Eugene Robinson to Dana Milbank criticize Wright one has to believe things are bad for Obama with this. And even if he manages to hang on to the nomination this will continue now through the election in November and make it very hard for Obama to win.

It is sad that Rev. Wright couldn't think more of his community and what an Obama election would mean than about himself and standing in the limelight for a few minutes.

Posted by: peter DC | April 29, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

the fact that the media is talking about Rev Wright on a day that Governor Easely is publicly endorsing Hillary and 7 days before their primary, speaks volumes of where the 2 campaigns are. Hillary is talking about the economy, the economy, the economy and a gas tax holiday for Hoosiers and Sen Obama's message is totally drowned out by the noise of Rev Wright and his ridiculous and totally inexplicable opposition to the gas tax holiday. Guess which message those voters would prefer hearing?
Again can an Obama supporter explain why Rev Wright seems determined to destroy the Obama candidacy and why Sen Obama does not appreciate voter outrage over $4 gas prices. Both make absolutely no sense. Even David Axelrod this morning seems distressed by the recent speeches by Wright that he can do absolutely nothing to change other than to desperately try and change subjects.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 29, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I beg to differ GK. We see what the media reports and if all they report relative to Obama is about Jeremiah Wright, then you'd be hardpressed not to think he isn't toughing the flesh. This has been a long campaign and it ebbs and it flows. it's safe to say that right now, it's ebbing and then some. We want to here about issues and we want closure so we can win back the White House. Capiche?

Posted by: Gharza | April 29, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I check the list of campaign events each candidate does each day. Hillary invariably does far more than Barack. He does large rallies and tv ads, she presses the flesh. Given that he is still an unknown quantity to many Americans, this is a problem. She gives the impression of wanting the job more than he does. He is letting others define him. The Reverend Wright stuff is unfortunate, and we shouldn't be held accountable for the rantings of others in our lives, but, seriously, doesn't Obama have any clout in his church? Why can't a group of church elders approach Wright on Obama's behalf, and tell Wright to go away until after November? You would think Wright would be more amenable to helping someone he knows and identifies with become the President of the U.S. I wonder if his other congregants are disgusted with him, knowing that his rantings are damaging Obama's campaign. Again, I know that the Wright thing is nonsense, but if Obama can't contain it, how good are his political skills?

Posted by: gerard karcher | April 29, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company