Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Polling the Wright Stuff

Ever since Barack Obama delivered his widely publicized speech on race last week, we've been waiting for some reliable poll results to gauge the impact his words had on defusing the hubbub created by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

New numbers are available in the form of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- one of the best polls, to our mind, out there these days.

The data suggests that Obama has passed his first major crisis -- not, perhaps, with flying colors, but passed it nonetheless.

Asked whether Obama has "sufficiently addressed the [Wright] issue", 32 percent of the NBC/WSJ sample said he had while 26 percent said the he needs to do more to explain the situation. Roughly three in ten of those tested said they had either not seen the speech or had no opinion of it (who are these people?!).

Not surprisingly, a look inside those numbers reveals a racial disparity. Nearly 70 percent of black voters said Obama's address had been an adequate explanation of the Wright controversy; just 45 percent of white voters said the same.

While the racial divide in attitudes toward the speech is clear, the Wright controversy does not seem to have driven white voters to Hillary Rodham Clinton at the expense of Obama. Clinton held a 49 percent to 41 percent lead among white voters -- a smaller margin than she enjoyed in another NBC/WSJ poll conducted earlier this month. (Clinton led 51 percent to 39 percent among white voters in that survey.)

It's also worth noting that the poll was in the field Monday and Tuesday -- right as the controversy over Clinton's misstatement about a 1996 trip to Bosnia was generating headlines across the country. Context matters when it comes to polling, and the negative coverage of the Bosnia story may explain why just 37 percent of voters surveyed by NBC/WSJ view her positively -- the lowest measure for this key question since the presidential campaign began.

Overall, the NBC/WSJ poll showed the race dead even with both candidates receiving 45 percent support -- a testament to the fact that there remain real and durable groups of support for both Obama and Clinton even as conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the race is Obama's to lose.

General election tests against Republican John McCain prove similarly inconclusive. Obama "leads" McCain 44 percent to 42 percent while Clinton "trails" him 46 percent to 44 percent, but the results for both hypothetical races are well with the survey's 3.7 percent margin of error.

Taken collectively, what the numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll suggest is that Rev. Wright did not derail Obama's candidacy, nor did the controversy provide Clinton with a significant boost. Democrats remain divided about their choice -- and the end is nowhere in sight. On to Pennsylvania...

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 27, 2008; 7:57 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008 , Parsing the Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Blog Roll: The Best of State Political Blogs
Next: FixCam: Obamacains and McClintons

Comments

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

Posted by: ferryaptosblue | March 29, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

Posted by: ferryaptosblue | March 29, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

Posted by: ferryaptosblue | March 29, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

Posted by: ferryaptosblue | March 29, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

This is ridicoulous! This is old news! Plus, Barack is the most tolerant politician Washington has seen since Kennedy! Go-Bama!

Posted by: ferryaptosblue | March 29, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Say what asja.
What's that ranting all about??

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Will those committed Christians who believe this 232 year -old country we love is above God's judgment please stand up.


You hypocrites!

Go ahead and post if you you can say you're a committed Christian who strongly believes America and the actions of its political leaders are above God's damnation when we go astray.

Go ahead!

Posted by: asja | March 28, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Gallup Poll:

The Gallup poll showed 28 per cent of Senator Clinton's supporters said they would vote for Republican nominee John McCain if the former first lady lost the Democratic nomination for the election.

Almost 20 per cent of Senator Obama's supporters indicated they too would vote for Senator McCain over Senator Clinton if Senator Obama was not the Democratic nominee.

The worrying signs for Democrats came as an unnamed party official told the American ABC network that the only path for Senator Clinton to secure the presidential nomination was to use the "Tonya Harding" option, which implies damaging Senator Obama badly enough to undermine his electability.

In 1994 the disgraced American figure skater was involved in a conspiracy to kneecap rival Nancy Kerrigan ahead of the Winter Olympics.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm, the population of blacks in Texas is only 17% and he took the most delegates in Texas (despite what the liberal media is telling you). Wait till the state convention in June when the announcement can be legally made. Obama won in Texas.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

And, by the way, if the voters in those states still vote for Senator Clinton after the lies she so easily makes, then the deserve what they get.
Polls now show that Obama would beat McCain, but McCain would beat Clinton. She has dropped to her lowest rating. Read up.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

No, you are sadly mistaken. He does not need to take the lead in any of those states. He just needs to keep the percentage of voters that he has had in other primaries.. Those states are not a winner take all.
Read up. Hillary cannot mathematically win the nomination.

Posted by: wly34 | March 28, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Chris you are usually good at this but today you made a mistake. National polls mean nothing here. It is the Ohio, PA and NJ polls that we need to look at. These are where I think Obama got hurt most by the Pastor Wright comments and he needs to either keep PA and NJ and win Ohio to win the Presidency. This is where the problem could be.

Does the poll say where the 45% of Whites who think he needs to do more are?

Posted by: peterdc | March 28, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: glclark4750 | March 28, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Excellent posts from Webster51 and chadibuins.

I predict that Richardson was just the first in line of high-profile Super Delegates that will move to the Obama camp.

The Supers are not stupid. They know just as well as we do that they need to head off a catastophe at the Convention.

It would be catatrophe if Obama were to win the delegate count and the state count and lose the Nom to Hillary. The Supers know this. And I predict they step in and prevent it.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 28, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

"three in ten of those tested said they had either not seen the speech or had no opinion of it (who are these people?!)."

Believe it or not Chris, some people are more interested in the real pressing national economic crisis we're in, or the war in Iraq, than this media hyped issue of what some pastor said once upon a time.

Seriously, you guys get so in a bubble you forget that the real issues that matter to people have nothing to do with these side shows.

Posted by: DanKirkd | March 28, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

As a fellow Floridian--I completely concur with Webster above--I have not heard one peep from any Florida Dem I have met or know. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

I am so sick of hearing about Florida and Michigan voters. I live in Florida...and not ONCE has anybody said to me that they are upset because their votes didnt count. And people down here no more blame Obama for the problem but our Governor for changing the date when he knew the rules. So please dont talk about what you dont know. Hillary was ok with these states not counting till she got behind. But it isnt the Floridians that are upset..it is Hillary.

Posted by: Webster51 | March 28, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

well drindl, you've missed the point.. yet again... big shock.

You say it's no business of mine?

OK, if I formed a whites-only anything (club, business, fraternity, restaurant), is it any business of theirs?

Oh, I thought so.

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JD | March 27, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Vammap, a friend explained to me why Obama wins in caucuses and Hillary does so badly. In a caucus, your vote is seen by all and no one wants to be seen voting for Senator Clinton.

Posted by: wly34 | March 27, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

And by the way, Obama won the most delegates in Texas and Hillary is threatening to sue the Texas Democratic Party.

Posted by: wly34 | March 27, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

They're hearing it and hearing it loud and clear, that the votes must be counted. It's the failure of the DNC if they don't make it happen, rules can be changed. It can't be too hard for anyone to realize, Obama's nomination will be looked at as illigitimate unless the votes are counted; and if Hillary wins, having counted those votes, there is no way that could be construed as illigitimate: if both MI/FL races are fair and each candidate can vy for votes the way they would in a normal primary, what's unfair?
Is it unfair because Obama doesn't do well in primaries? And if he loses because he doesn't do well in primaries, is that unfair?

vammap, you do realize if the votes are counted as is the democratic party would be ruined for years. In both Florida and Michigan the candidates agree to withdraw per the request of the democratic party. Then Hillary Clinton did not. In Florida, the Obama did not campaign per agreement. In Michigan all withdrew except Hillary. She was the only major canditate on the ballot and yet "uncommited" still received 37% of the vote. Read up, It is all on the internet to be read.
The Florida and Michigan vote cannot be counted as now stands.

Posted by: wly34 | March 27, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON, March 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's positive rating has dropped to a new low of 37 percent in an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released on Wednesday.

According to the poll, the New York senator's positive rating slid 8 percentage points in two weeks and she had a negative rating of 48 percent in a week where she admitted making a mistake in claiming she had come under sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia.


In head-to-head matchups, Obama and Clinton were even at 45 percent. In general election matchups, Obama led McCain by 44 percent to 42 percent and McCain led Clinton by 46 percent to 44 percent.

When asked which candidate could unite the country if elected, 60 percent said Obama, 58 percent said McCain and 46 percent said Clinton.

The poll of 700 registered voters was conducted on Monday and Tuesday and had a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.

Posted by: wly34 | March 27, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Patrick--

The remarks will be in the oral transcripts; so that's why I didn't provide a link. There wasn't one. But, Clinton said this herself in a video clip and Obama's remark was something they quoted. They did not show him saying this as I recall.

The segment was about Dems leaving the party if their candiate was not elected. One would imagine that this has been a frequent discussion, of late, happening all over the Internet, via every which way, emailed and phoned in to Congressmen and women and back to the campaigns, otherwise it wouldn't have aired.

They're hearing it and hearing it loud and clear, that the votes must be counted. It's the failure of the DNC if they don't make it happen, rules can be changed. It can't be too hard for anyone to realize, Obama's nomination will be looked at as illigitimate unless the votes are counted; and if Hillary wins, having counted those votes, there is no way that could be construed as illigitimate: if both MI/FL races are fair and each candidate can vy for votes the way they would in a normal primary, what's unfair?
Is it unfair because Obama doesn't do well in primaries? And if he loses because he doesn't do well in primaries, is that unfair?

The whole basis for our democratic voting process is getting people to vote; the gripe of the African American community is that their votes have been discouraged. What an outrage to think that the first Black President is discouraging votes and on that basis his win would be deemed illigitimate.

It won't happen. As long as he denies voters, he will be looked upon as someone who says one thing and does another, pretty close to a description of old school Washington politics.

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

(CNN)--Over the past year, bulletins from Barack Obama's church have appeared online that included writings from controversial figures like Louis Farrakahn of the Nations of Islam and Hamas leader Mousa Mohammed Marzook.

One of the articles, reprinted on the Web site's "Pastor's Page," was originally printed in the Los Angeles Times as "Hamas stand." Pastor Wright added a new title, "A Fresh View of the Palestinian Struggle.'

The article defended and justified terrorism and refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. The LA Times came under fire for giving a platform to an alleged terrorist.

The pages appear to have been removed from the Church's website.

This week, Obama denounced the articles, telling the Jerusalem Post that the church was "outrageously wrong" in reprinting the pieces. "Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction," said the Illinois senator.

Obama's former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, also came under fire this week when reports surfaced that he had written an article for Trumpet Magazine, run by his daughters, in which he said that "white supremacy is clearly in charge in America." The article also quotes him referring to Italians' "garlic noses," and characterizing Jesus' crucifixion as "a public lynching, Italian-style."

Similar remarks from Rev. Wright prompted Obama's public address of race last week. Recent polls suggest Obama has recovered politically after that address.

On Wednesday, Rev. Wright cancelled upcoming guest appearances in Florida and Texas, citing security concerns.
------------------
While I hate CNN and all network news, I went to look up the above Clinton remark on not voting for McShame, I came across the above article. How much more is going to come out between now and November. I don't buy that Obama either was not there, did not agree, or his lame 'he's like an old Uncle' crap. This man preaches hate, either Obama disassociates himself from this creep or he's toast.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 27, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

JD and Mike - The study makes sense when you think of the correlation to church membership. I just had not realized the disparity in church/synagogue membership, I guess.

Thanks for directing me to the Will column - would have got to it eventually!

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: ajtiger92: For clarity and political correctiveness, Rev. Wright should have said Romans and not Italians.

More excuses. The fact is, it doesn't matter what words he used because the message is still the same. It's obvious that political correctness does not occur to Reverend Wright. Evidently the same rules that he expects those he preaches against to follow do not apply to him, or his congregation. It's unbelievably arrogant and hypocritical.

If Barack Obama is such a leader, a motivator and a man for "change", let's see him start with Reverend Wright.

Posted by: LSB2 | March 27, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

FYI, Dudes, this just in on CNN....

The two camps just came out with this on CNN, the pro-Obama Channel:

Clinton says DEMS don't vote for McCain.

Obama says he'll rethink allowing the votes.

VICTORY IS SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however."

Every time I go to Austin (I truly do try to minimize such unpleasantries), I take an extra long shower afterwards.

Mark, I wonder if your water bill is abnormally high.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 05:15 PM
---------------------
What exactly is it that makes you feel so dirty Mike?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 27, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

radicalpatroit: I have been looking at Polling data for well over a year and can see no way for Obama to win the GE. I have thought from the very start Hillary was the only Dem that could. This has not changed, and The Media has been almost 100% supportive of Obama. Every day there are negative reports about Hillary, and the only one that has had traction is the "under fire/sniper" thing in which she clearly LIED. I have no idea why she did such a stupid thing, and that is what it was, "STUPID".

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

MOVEON wants what all good Dems want: nomination process by the rules.
Pretty simple.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

MOVEON can't believe Clinton investors would cut off funds to DNC if the votes aren't counted, so they're asking people to sign a letter to that effect. MOVEON does not want the votes counted.

Wasn't it not so long ago that MOVEON wanted votes counted?

This is exactly why the party is being split in half. MOVEON does not speak for all Democrats, which may have been the case in 2000 and 2004, but not now.

And they have the gall to say in the letter, that the Democratic nomination should be picked by the voters.

As long as Obama doesn't want all the votes counted, he loses half the DFL support.

Needlesss to say, MOVEON endorsed and supports Obama.

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Rev. Wright says "Italians looked down on Galieans with there garlic noses". He goes to say that "Italians killed Jesus". He is speaking the religious truth although not in the today's correct PC language.
-----------------------

He's so historically ridiculous, one can only laugh. Would have made for an entertaining Sopranos episode though.

I'm sure the Faux News viewers are eating it up like, well, like Italians eating garlic.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I think Rev. Wright's language is the problem not his content. The newest piece to hit the web and conservative radio is a small written piece by Rev. Wright regarding the eulogy of Dr. Asa Hilliard.

Rev. Wright says "Italians looked down on Galieans with there garlic noses". He goes to say that "Italians killed Jesus". He is speaking the religious truth although not in the today's correct PC language.

Romans (i.e. Italians) were very prejudiced against ancient Jews (Galieans) and did eat garlic because they believe it inspired courage. Romans (i.e. Italians because Rome is in Italy) did order the killing of Jesus.

For clarity and political correctiveness, Rev. Wright should have said Romans and not Italians.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 27, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

"Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt until you have proof otherwise."

But, wpost4112, what about the "Bush Doctrine" ? ! ?

-----------------------------

"Bush" and "Doctrine" seem mutually exclusive.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

"Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt until you have proof otherwise."

But, wpost4112, what about the "Bush Doctrine" ? ! ? !

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

'PS when I posted that, I had in mind those t-shirts "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" - what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only?'


whites were never slaves of blacks. congress used to be all white and on the R side, still mostly is. blacks couldn't get most jobs--and there's still a lot they don't.

and i don't see why you care whether there is a black fraternity at a college. what business is it of yours? how does it hurt you?

but i agree with bsimon . the ACLU would be happy to help.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

PS when I posted that, I had in mind those t-shirts "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" - what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only? See how racist the double standard is?

-----------------------

Years ago, I took several classes at the University of Detroit. I was usually the only white person in class. One guy used to wear one of those T-shirts. It didn't bother me per se, but what occurred to me the momoent I saw it was how it stopped all communication, and hence any hope to bridge the gap. Much like the blog tag "proudtobeGOP"...it is in itself a name which stops communication rather than foster it.

Anyhoo, one day we were in a heated debate about the history of something or other, and using my knowledge of ancient Roman history from my graduate studies in Latin, made a scoring point. The guy who wore that T-shirt was pissed for losing the argument turned around and demanded rather loudly: "How do you know that?" I replied, "You wouldn't understand, it's a Classical thing."

The class erupted.

What followed was a very heated and healthy discussion of racism, language, communication, power, community, education.

The fact is, it is always a human thing and we can all understand given time and knowlege.

The finest bit of wisdom the Jesuits ever gave me was this rule of thumb:

Always give the other person the benefit of the doubt until you have proof otherwise.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"Every time I go to Austin... I take an extra long shower..."

I thought the "baths" were in San Francisco.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

JD writes
"If it's wrong for whites, it's wrong for blacks. End of story."


I guess it doesn't bother me much.

Here's an idea: get yourself elected to Congress, then make a big stink if they don't let you join the Congressional Black Caucus. I bet the ACLU would back you on that one.

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"So THAT'S why you write as you do! Those kicks to the head must hurt! You should really start wearing a helmet to prevent further cognitive and emotive deterioration. Please."

Speaking of others' writing?

Your ever-hyperbolic, explanation-filled disasters bore me.

Whatever your hobby is, [insert personal insult here].

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however."

Every time I go to Austin (I truly do try to minimize such unpleasantries), I take an extra long shower afterwards.

Mark, I wonder if your water bill is abnormally high.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I'd love to have them for students in my kickboxing class.

--------------------

So THAT'S why you write as you do! Those kicks to the head must hurt! You should really start wearing a helmet to prevent further cognitive and emotive deterioration. Please.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse


Remember it's March, not November. There is a lot of time between now and then. Polls held in March aren't very accurate at forecasting what will happen in November.
It is something the Democratic party will have to address, but not an impossible situation to resolve. I think a lot of Democrats are bluffing about voting for McCain--on both Obama's and Clinton's side.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 04:08 PM


You sound like someone from the DNC. You're talking about a deep fissure, that's been reopened and is rapidly getting deeper and deeper..the more Obama camp tries to evade the utter racist core at his hope and change campaign, the disenfranchising of voters, the lack of honesty about policy positions and relationships with Rezko, Wright and Farraken, his overexaggerated position at the U of I, practicing the same old attacks, while saying his campaign is different, the deeper the fissure gets.

It's an insurmountable problem for his campaign and one which the Clinton camp will play to the hilt, and rightfully so. And if she doesn't beat him, he'll face it again with Republicans.

1. His speech had little impact to convince white voters that hate speech is acceptable, under any conditions.

2. Just one more hit, where people question his motivations, integrity, character and he's toast.

3. He has the giant task of changing the perception people have about him, it's uphill all the way...

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin --

To your first: that was a George Will article in WSJ, posted by JD.

My commentary: I was surprised as well. I almost would have predicted that liberals were more generous.


To your second: Operation Chaos is not for the weak stomach.

And yes, voting for another Clinton would not be my cup of tea.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

mark:

Which of them do you think didn't know/have an opinion of Rev. Wright's sermon? 3 out of 10 according to the poll, right?

BTW, we're into crazy season here. President Clinton is here tonight, followed by Sen. Obama on Sunday. I can't go hear ol' Bill, but I'll join the mosh pit on Sunday.

Posted by: mnteng | March 27, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

bsimon and chad; yes, despite popular opinion, I'm not an idiot. I get it, that's the historical rationale for their existence.

But today? When everything is open (and indeed, blacks have it 'easier', at least from the gov perspective)? How can we continue to maintain these segregated institutions?

If it's wrong for whites, it's wrong for blacks. End of story.

Posted by: JD | March 27, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

What do you think? Could we?


Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 04:34 PM


No question, yes. But what are you willing to sacrifice?

Drill in Alaska and offshore
Mine and burn a whole lot of coal (we have 300 yrs supply in Tennessee Mtns)
Build and operate 3 dozen nuke plants (we have 500 yrs supply of uranium in Kentucky's shale
Build 50 wind farms offshore, ruining Ted Kennedy's view

So whose ox did you want to gore?

Posted by: JD | March 27, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

JD said:
"what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only?"

What you are missing is in large part "main stream America" is a "white thing"--the reason there are HBCU's and HBC frats/sors is because blacks were historically not allowed into the others--a white person can go to a HBCU or pledge a HBC frat/sor--but the acknowledgement is that it was there for the balck community when the white community wouldn't let them in. The Congressional Black Caucus exists becasue of the disparity of elected officials from the Af-Am community--they meet to discuss and speak about issues (they feel) affect the Af-Am community as a whole--not as a way to keep whites down, or steal power or anything else--they are recognizing their historic place as Af-Am legislators--not declaring a gov't within a gov't--as far as affirmative action, I will not attemmpt to replay that argument at the threat of a threadjack.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

JD writes of double standards
"What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities?"

I don't find the CBC valuable, personally, but I think the point in establishing the CBC or black universities and fraternities is precisely because Congress and higher ed institutions were all-white institutions for a long time.

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, JD - had not time to read Will yet. Later.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"A really happy crew."

Happy, really happy.

I'd love to have them for students in my kickboxing class. That'd be fun.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 04:41 PM
---------------
Hey Mark you said that the ladies were attractive but not the guys, that's not fair. ;)

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 27, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

just a joke -- take it easy!

;-)

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Mark,
the guys were Republicans.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Back on topic of the Wright sermons and Obama response ....

It looks like Obama got at least one notable political figure to start talking about race.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/gingrich-engages-on-the-issue-of-race/

Posted by: mnteng | March 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Completely off-topic, this is an Austin vignette.

I met my youngest daughter for lunch at a steakhouse today. At the next table were four people in their twenties: a big blonde guy with a military brush cut, a big black guy with dreads, an attractive but muscular anglo woman, and an attractive lean latina.
They were playing verbal graba$$ the entire lunch the way 25 year olds do.

We left behind them. The guys walked out with their arms over each other's shoulders. The women walked out with their arms around each other's waists. T-shirts, jeans, work boots. They all pile into a big pick-up owned by a major building contractor.

A really happy crew. Probably no McC votes among them, however.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

About three weeks ago, Hillary's lead in the RealClearPolitics average was nine percent. Now it is 16 percent.

From mid-February to mid-March, Obama lost ten points of favorability in a state (TX)in which he did only a little bit of campaigning. Some of that was due to sharper attacks from Hillary Clinton (particularly the "3 a.m." ad), but a healthy chunk of is probably fallout from Wright.

What's more, it's not clear how quickly Obama can earn back that trust. His speech probably didn't make much difference with the blue-collar, white, working-class Democrats -- they're more interested in 'show me',' not 'give me a speech.'

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes: "I will never vote for Obama, and no way can he win the GE. There is just so much wrong about this guy, I cannot even understand this "Feeling" I have every time I see and hear him."

First, if there is any one lesson everyone should have learned from this campaign, it is that nothing is for certain. Anyone who makes some sweeping statement that "X will easily win the election" or "X does not have a chance against Y in the election" has obviously not learned even the first lesson of the past year. One "invincible" [Giuliani] is in the trashcan of history where he belongs, and the
other "invincible" is so badly behind that
it is now possible that only an internal destruction of the Democratic party will be the way for her to steal the nomination.

And as for basing your political opinions by what you "FEEL" . . . That is the Lucetta argument [from "The Two Gentlemen from Verona"]. In trying to decide between two men, she says: "I have no other but mine own reasoning. I think him to be so, because I think him to be so."

Try some real reasons. The Clinton-Clinton team is just as despicable as President Bush-Cheney. And I've given my list of REASONS on this site too many times to post them again, unless you really want to think about such things.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Food for Thought:

If we invested $400,000,000 a day into a National Effort -- a nation-wide project -- on becoming energy independent, how long would it take before we achieved energy independence?

If we assembled the best and brightest from academia and the business world into a think-tank with the goal of making this country self-sufficient, and were willing to provide them with $400,000,000 a day, do you think they could do it?

The Manhattan Project built a successful atomic bomb; if we marshaled our resources, couldn't we kick the oil-addiction and figure out alternatives?

What do you think? Could we?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Mark... .ahem....

the source was the G will column... I posted today...

Posted by: JD | March 27, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Are you really hurt by some black guy calling you cracker, ofay, or peckerwood? When guys like Wright say things like the US government deliberately infects blacks with AIDS, he is admitting his own powerlessness. I say let the guy rant. He can't hurt you.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 27, 2008 03:02 PM

No, but I see blacks calling other blacks the n-word all the time, both in person and in pop culture.

I firmly believe it's a free country, and Wright definitely has the right to rant, as you put it.

But Obama's at least tangentially connected to this guy. Since BHO has pretty much no track record to judge him on, people will, reasonably, look at who his friends are and make assumptions accordingly.

JD

PS when I posted that, I had in mind those t-shirts "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand" - what if it said it's a white thing? What if there were a Congressional White Caucus? Historically white colleges and fraternities? Jobs set aside for whites only? See how racist the double standard is?

Posted by: JD | March 27, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Mike, that charity info is very interesting. What is the source?

I would have predicted no statistical difference - so I really want to follow up on this because it surprises me.
---------------------
Imputing individual motivations to groups of persons is treacherous ground - I am referring to Rs who x-over to vote D in the primaries. Some vote their least unfavored D; some vote their fave D [a different calculation], some vote the D-most-likely to-lose-in-the-voter's-estimation, and some were just making mischief. In my Precinct, the D and R judges figured exactly 3 Rs voted D b/c of Rush. Probably @50/@700 the day of the Primary were x-over Rs. The R support was based more on which D the R voter would rather suffer through for four years than which D would likely lose to McC, according to the Rs in my neighborhood. I tend to believe that.

If Proud had been in TX, she would have voted Clinton if the R Primary was meaningless, b/c she thinks Clinton knows more, not to game the system. Most individuals are still motivated as individuals, not as pawns.

Mike, you wanted me to vote for MDH, or HRC to extend the Ds' misery, It's easy to ask someone else to do that, but in the voting booth it is so hard to vote for someone one would rather not see in office.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Not to mention the Supreme Court.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 27, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"I think a lot of Democrats are bluffing about voting for McCain--on both Obama's and Clinton's side."

Once the Dems do finally decide on a candidate -- and the debate on issues begins -- I, too, think the Hillary Supporters and Obama Supporters will realize what a vote for McCain really means.

A vote for McCain means a vote for the continued occupation of Iraq. $400,000,000 a day. Just ponder that for a moment.

A vote for McCain is also a vote to make Bush's tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans permanent.

How big can the deficit get? How weak can the dollar get? How big can the record get for Oil Company profits?

A vote for McCain will also mean reactionary judicial appointments to the bench.

When the Democratic voters see the difference between McCain and the Democratic Nominee, the choice will be clear. The differences are SO stark...

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

McCain is turning into Bush so fast he's even using 'bush's brain'

McCain's secret weapon: maps by 'Karl Rove & Co.' Filed Under: Administration

McCain's secret weapon: maps by 'Karl Rove & Co.'»
"During a public conversation in Texas last night with former Bush pollster Matthew Dowd, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) media adviser, Mark Mckinnon, displayed "maps of the states broken down by electoral votes" that gamed McCain's chances in November. According to Texas Monthly's Evan Smith, "the printed header on both" maps "read 'Karl Rove & Co.'"

Rove has previously been reported to be "informally advising" McCain's campaign. During the chat, McKinnon also revealed that "McCain would be happy to have Bush campaign with him in the fall" and "that he had no intention of running from Bush.""

I hope he takes him on every stop. Now, there's judgment.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

thanks wpost--its up :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

'Or, better yet, just spend half a million bucks of supporters' money to make a slick ad. Spend spend spend That's the lib way!'

yeah, absolutely. because republicans never spend money to make a 'slick ad.' that's why Mccain has spent hundreds of thousands on the 'slickest' people in the propaganda/ slime business to do his dirty work.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"Taken collectively, what the numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll suggest is that Rev. Wright did not derail Obama's candidacy".

I am totally dumbfounded as to how people of my party can sit back and still support Obama after what we have heard coming out of his church? IT'S UNBELIEVABLE!!

And his excuses of "never hearing" anything like this or knowing about this is a bold-faced LIE! THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. He is a product of this church as much as a child is a product of his family environment.

Now we are finding out that the bulletins of this church referred to Italians as "garlic-noses" and the crucifixion of Jesus a "lynching italian-style".

WHAT KIND OF CHURCH IS THIS?!!!!

Call me a "typical white person" because the churches I have attended would never, ever even think of saying or publishing such hateful, racist or bigoted remarks. But I guess it's ok for churches in the Black Community. Why? Because for some reason they are ENTITLED? Sorry, I'm not buying it and no one else with any COMMON SENSE should either!

Obama has no business even running for president of our country.

And by the way, the media is trying to deflect this controversy by dwelling on the comment Hillary made about her trip to Bosnia. A comment that, as Obama likes to put it when he does it, was "something stupid" and "knuckle-headed". Well, it doesn't even COMPARE!

Posted by: LSB2 | March 27, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

wpost--I agree with everything you said except the part about anyone can be a racist--call it what you will there is a difference in prejudice when it comes from those in authority or the majority than prejudicial comments from the minority. Rev. Wright, or any black-national could never get "white Jim Crow" laws passed; nor could NBC ever have a show about 6 Af-Am "Friends" and not have it called "Af-Am-centered" or "urban"--yet when they have a show about 6 white "Friends"--of which I am a huge fan--it is considered "mainstrea,". I am not hating on Friends, or anything--just pointing out there is a difference. But I have explained my thinking and my rationale--how about we just agree to meet on the 2/3 middle ground and chalk the rest up to semantics and POV? :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

vammap: Not at all. I will never vote for Obama, and no way can he win the GE. There is just so much wrong about this guy, I cannot even understand this "Feeling" I have every time I see and hear him.

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is staying in the race for good reason. She can make the argument that there simply aren't enough blacks, young voters, and latte liberals to build a successful coalition for a D candidate in a general election.

Trying to bolster his street cred for the CheeseSteak primary, the Obama campaign recently spent $330,000 on television ads in the Philadelphia market. One ad's message was about Obama's efforts on ethics reform and his refusal to allow "special interests" to run his campaign or his White House.

Special interests- You mean like the $92 million in earmarks Obama took?

And the senator from Illinois, who says that he wants transparency in government, will not reveal the number of earmarks that he received in 2006 and 2005. Is that transparency in government? I don't think so.


Another ad features Republican Illinois state lawmakers praising his negotiation skills and bipartisanship.

Well, he seemed to have quite a bit of difficulty negotiating anything with his pastor friend about using race-baiting to incite hatred for govt and fellow citizens; seems like he could have honed his negotiating skills a little better there. He'd rather negotiate with Chavez and Castro instead, they're not as scary as Wright.

Or, better yet, just spend half a million bucks of supporters' money to make a slick ad. Spend spend spend That's the lib way!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

New numbers are available in the form of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- one of the best polls, to our mind, out there these days"

LMAO, the poll that always leans towards Obama!


why did you skip that Obama now ranks lower than either other candidate in honesty, leadership, and trustworthiness?
Why not send people to Pollster.com that shows the results of all the big polls.

and shows that Obama is in trouble.

Oh, yeah, you're chris!

"I'm barry obama and I support this column

Posted by: newagent99 | March 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

New numbers are available in the form of the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll -- one of the best polls, to our mind, out there these days"

LMAO, the poll that always leans towards Obama!


why did you skip that Obama now ranks lower than either other candidate in honesty, leadership, and trustworthiness?
Why not send people to Pollster.com that shows the results of all the big polls.

and shows that Obama is in trouble.

Oh, yeah, you're chris!

"I'm barry obama and I support this column

Posted by: newagent99 | March 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I would like permission to post it and your 1:52 post on my own blog http://roastedreligion.blogspot.com

---------------

no prob.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

That's already been evidenced by a poll that just came out showing Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton if she wins, and Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama if he wins. McCain is moderate; and would pick up Clinton's votes.

Get a brain!

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 04:01 PM

Remember it's March, not November. There is a lot of time between now and then. Polls held in March aren't very accurate at forecasting what will happen in November.
It is something the Democratic party will have to address, but not an impossible situation to resolve. I think a lot of Democrats are bluffing about voting for McCain--on both Obama's and Clinton's side.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse


"Rev Wright Supports Hamas, which supports using children, including new-born babies, as "human bombs"

You really ought to be banned--you're a complete moron.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Also, it's likely there will be DFL control in both houses, so if McCain won he'd be stymied legislatively...

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

racism implies power and superiority.
Prejudiced is pre-judgement.
Blacks and minorities cannot be racist (however prejudiced--ignorantly or otherwise--some may be)

-------------

gotta disagree wih you here.

Racism is a BELIEF in the superiority of a group of people based on race. Such a belief implies either extreme ignorance or deep insecurity.

Any human being can be a racist. Many racists I have met in the south, both black and white, seem to have 2 things in common...they see themselves as powerless and they keep reality far from their door. Racism is nothing more than weakest of excuses for one's own poor state in life. I have never met a racist who is vibrantly self-sufficient, intelligent, well-informed and secure in themselves.

Most people forget that the anti-semitism of Nazi Germany, the racism of the pre Civil War South, the Apartheid in Africa, the current anti-semitism in Arab countries and the anti-arabism in the far-right communities in Israel, require one very necessary ingredient:

fostering a closed society with poor access to communication and heavy propaganda.

This is why the far-right conservatives--mostly religious fascists--want to control the internet..it is the greatest threat to
their control of information. It's why China is so focussed on controlling the internet...information is power.

It is why Rush, Hannity, Obermann, etc those extreme pundits on either side, spend most of their time attacking the other side rather than trying to find common ground. To silence the other by demonizing them stops the free flow of information. Rush et al are too insecure for the free exchange of info ..it's one of the reasons they choos the professions they do..they control the microphone.... They thrive on hate, because it is so blind and deaf....so irrational. It stops meaningful comuunication.

Can poor blacks be racists? Absolutely. And they are just as wrong as ignorant and insecure as the wealthiest KKK kook.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Brigham Young was a nasty piece of work, besides being a racist and serial child molester. But the press corps would never disparage the relgion of a white republican. They haven't said a work about McCain's 'spiritual advisor' who says Catholics are wh*res.

And referencing the camel and the needle's eye, McCain's other spiritul advisor runs a sleazy carny sideshow 'prosperity' ministry' where he tells people however much they give to him, God will give them 10 times as much. But will the press touch it? Of course not.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

how 'bout this,
"god almighty will give the united states a pill that will puke them to death. i am prophet enough to prophesy the downfall of the government...woe to the united states...i see them greedy after death and destruction."
-brigham young

Posted by: jeffmcnary | March 27, 2008 03:50 PM
------------------------------
Man I hope McShame picks Romney. It's going to make Wright seem like an angel. Magic underwear, gold tablets read through a hat, bigamy, rape, murder. Oh what fun it will be.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 27, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Correction CA-Webb.

We've got a lot of practical jokers, I means spinners, I mean imbeciles on this blog.

She said that if they don't count the votes in FL/MI than it's likely Democrats will not win in Nov. And she's right, because if in November Obama runs against McCain, Republicans will hold him responsible for millions of votes he wouldn't count; they'll pound him. But, what's worse, it will come back to haunt him when Fl and MI voters will not check his name off on the ballot.

That's already been evidenced by a poll that just came out showing Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton if she wins, and Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama if he wins. McCain is moderate; and would pick up Clinton's votes.

Get a brain!

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

USMC-Mike: Huh?? Your Repub friends voted for Hillary because THEY disagreed with me?? I would commend them, but you should ask them why they are trying to deceive you, when I also think there is something bad wrong with the guy and have said so many times. svreader & others are in agreement with me as your friends apparently are as well.

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

how 'bout this,
"god almighty will give the united states a pill that will puke them to death. i am prophet enough to prophesy the downfall of the government...woe to the united states...i see them greedy after death and destruction."
-brigham young

Posted by: jeffmcnary | March 27, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

AJtiger--thanks for posting the whole sermon. I cannot say I reacted much different--in the days after 9/11 I was pilloried at my former church because I taught a lesson on "Pray for your enemies" and had the audacity to take that at face value. I think Wright's words were right-on in this case--I do not share all of his beliefs and do think he suffers from some prejudice (AS DO WE ALL) but I think the clips are more of a distraction--the words themselves should cause our nation to think and pause.

Wpost--wonderful poignant post--I would like permission to post it and your 1:52 post on my own blog http://roastedreligion.blogspot.com

of course I'll credit it to you. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink,

Are you saying that all Democrats must vote for Obama if Clinton loses? Is that your point?

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

On Fox yesterday, HRC claims that she doesn't think a Dem can win the race for President.

What a stab for her supporters and the DNC.

The full transcript is at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342151,00.html

Posted by: CA_Webb | March 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

"Judging each other on matters of the heart are as meaningless as judging charity from an IRS filing."

I suggest re-reading the article.

According to the data, liberals would have a greater incentive for tax-write-offs (as they have higher taxable income).

Nice rant though. Wasted energy.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

bsimon calling someone testy?

no one must have insulted your dream-boy today.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Charity.

As some one remarked long ago, the poor will always be with us. In other words, we will always be creatures of choice.

That same man remarked on the rich who paraded their charity for all to see. To empower the poor? To promote the general welfare? No. To reap compliements and indulge in self-pride at a being so "generous," giving a pittance from their piled-up of wealth.

True charity has little to do with money or tax-write offs. It has to do with treating others with respect. It has to do with empowering those who have no power. It has to do with protecting the environment. It has to do with creating balance in society. It has to do with sacrificing one's comfort for another's survival. It has to do with self-respect, respect for others and respect for the created universe.

It has nothing to do with sending a check to Africa from the comfort of a exclusive country club.

As that same man said so many years ago, it will be easier for a camel loaded with baggage to get through the tiniest of archways than a rich person to enter the gates of heaven. Not because they are rich, but because they can't let go of the baggage.

Money is not the root of evil, it is the desire for it.

But as some of the rich are unable to release their grasp of materialism for love of neighbor, so too many of those who are not rich are unable to release their grasp of envy.

Judging each other on matters of the heart are as meaningless as judging charity from an IRS filing.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

radpat, you seem a bit testy.

I thought your phrase
"I'm certain that that last sentence--though grammatical precise and correct--will be too difficult in its construction for such people to comprend anyway."

Should read
"I'm certain that that last sentence--though grammatically precise and correct--will be too difficult in its construction for such people to comprend anyway."

Generally, when chastising others for limited intelligence, it is best to not include errors of your own in the same post.

Upon further review, I see a spelling error as well.

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Jeremiah Wright's full 9/11 sermon (let the educated get e full story then decide):

"Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God's guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do -- paybacks.

There's a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created. And I want you to notice very carefully this next move. One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred.

Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine: [rising voice] "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks."[lower voice] The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon. How shall we sing the Lord's song? If I forget the order ... The people of faith, have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]-these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple, burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents -- [low voice] the babies, the babies.

Blessed are they who dash your baby's brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process.

Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes.
Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don't lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, "Faith footnote." [Voices: "Faith footnote"]

[Begin faith footnote]
I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) -a white man- he pointed out- an ambassador- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.

We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism-we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working father. [fullest voice] We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks.

[fullest voice] We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard working people -mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home. [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New
York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.

America's chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

[lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.

Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days. Turn back to your neighbor, and say, "Footnote is over." [Voices: "Footnote is over."]

[End Faith Footnote]

[Gentle voice] Now, now. C'mon back to my question to the Lord, "What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act. I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey. No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport. On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the desinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn't even get her for Mr. Radford's father's funeral. And I asked God, "What should our response be?

I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone- no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping. [plaintiff high voice] And I asked the Lord, "What should our response be?" I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC. But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world, a different terror. This is a different reality. What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things. Let me share them with you quickly and I'm gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote.

Number one: The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father's death, God showed me that this was a time for me to examine my relationship with God. MY own relationship with God- personalrelationship with God.

I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency? It showed up in full force. Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week. I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week. [inaudible]

But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination. But the Lord said, "How is "our" relationship doing Jeremiah? How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately? How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?

This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God. Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show? Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do for the sake of eternity? [voice rising] This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God -- self examination.

[end of video tape.]

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 27, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

USMC_Mike --

Lylepink may have an even better answer than I do, but I call tell you that Republicans I know would LOVE to have Obama as the GE candidate, because they know that they can CRUSH him.

Take a look at this:

Its filled with facts from guy who worked as a reporter in Chicago and has known Obama for years.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

And this:

Barry Obama calls Rev. Wright, "his close friend", "his brother", "his spritual advisor"

Here's some interesting information about Rev. Wrigtht.

Rev Wright Supports Hamas, which supports using children, including new-born babies, as "human bombs"

From Reuters --

Embattled Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has experienced one of the most awful weeks in American political history. As I said here, you know it's bad when revealing extensive ties to Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko isn't the big news of the week. Clearly, the Pastor J-Wright scandal has temporarily sucked the oxygen out of the presidential campaigns. As bas as that seems, this article in WND adds another chapter to the Pastor J-Wright scandal. This headline says it all:

Obama Church Published Hamas Terror Manifesto

It gets worse from there:

The Hamas piece was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.

Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

That it was reprinted in Pastor J-Wright's newsletter calls into question how deep his hatred of Israel runs. Let's remember that this isn't something from 10 years ago. That op-ed ran last July. It's that much more troubling considering the fact that Pastor Wright accompanied Louis Farrakhan on a trip to Libya where he met Col. Qhadhaffi.

I'll take Sen. Obama at his word when he says that Pastor Wright has been his mentor. That's troubling because Pastor Wright's thinking towards Israel is far outside mainstream evangelical Christian thinking. Let's set that aside temporarily for the sake of this discussion. Let's pretend that evangelical Christians didn't take a position on Israel. Instead, let's think about this from a State Department standpoint. It seems like Hamas has been on the State Department's list of known terrorists forever.

That brings me to this question: What impact has Pastor J-Wright's views on Israel had on Sen. Obama? Sen. Obama says that he hasn't talked politics with Pastor J-Wright but, prior to this week, he insisted that he hadn't heard any of Pastor J-Wright's inflammatory sermons, too.

Suffice it to say that this story eliminates the possibility of the Obama-J-Wright controversy going away anytime soon.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

lylepink -- do you know about Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? Everyday on his show he takes calls from guys [it's always guys] who say they voted for Hillary in their primaries to keep the dem race going longer, and that they will be voting for McCain in the general. This is, of course, illegal in some states but what do laws mean to the rightwingers? They think their a joke, something for other people.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

spectator said:
"chadibuins: thanks for adding your eloquence to what I was trying to get at."

thanks--I feel like Sally Field at the Oscars--LOL :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

mul: Your vast flatulant words just proves what I suggested about the nature of Obama's speech. Thanks for being a living example of what I was merely suggesting.

And how foolishly inaccurate to call me a "GOP lib." A plague on both the Parties--they've made wormsmeat of America. Blind liberals are as misguided as blind conservatives. It is a radical patriotism, not a partisan politics, that America needs. Bush-Cheney are as bad a pair of of reading, and in some cases, a lot of politicians as Clinton-Clinton are. If you'd like a long list of REASONS why they are both similar and despicable, I have them right at hand, but it will take a lot thinking. I don't want to endanger anyone's mental health, such as it may be.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse


'AP: Green Zone Hit For Fourth Day This Week:

Shiite militants are hammering the U.S.-protected Green Zone with rockets and mortars for the fourth day this week.

Thick, black smoke is billowing from inside the heavily fortified home to the U.S. Embassy and Iraqi government.'

everyone together now -- THE SURGE IS WORKING!

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

chadibuins: thanks for adding your eloquence to what I was trying to get at.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 27, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

'in this country, blacks can be racist. Whites cannot.'

whites have never been the slaves of blacks, have they? whites have not been lynched by black men for looking at black women, have they?

black people in this country have every right to be angry over the way they have been, and still are, treated. some spoiled little rich white pukes don't seem to quite get that.

and as for listening to rush, what else do they have? rightwingers need an authoritarian to tell them what to think and do.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

bsimon--I know the reference to Hamlet perfectly well. But in what way has my own petard hoisted me? It is either that the sentence was not grammatically correct, or that you are one of those brainless irrationals that I predicted would not be able to even comprehend the sentence [said partly in jest, of course].

Since the sentence is grammatically correct, then it must be concluded that you consider yourself one of the latter group, and you were insulted. Actually, I was not thinking of you at all. Should I? I was thinking of others whom I won't bother to honor by even acknowledging their names.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

racism implies power and superiority.

Prejudiced is pre-judgement.

Blacks and minorities cannot be racist (however prejudiced--ignorantly or otherwise--some may be)

Wright's words and calls for action did not deny rights or participation to non blacks or whites.

Racism is prejudiced backed with political power, economic power or social power (or some combination) This is a predom white country--and even more so our law and culture are predom white. It is not a judgement call--just fact--when it comes to racism in America it is us of European/Caucasion descent who are the perps--others are merely prejudiced because of our (unatoned for)racist past.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

lylepink -- I know R's who really did vote for HRC just because they disagreed with you - they believe Obama is a scary GE candidate. How do you explain that?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

vammap & radicalpatroit: I have said the same thing for months, and when proof is being offered about the Repub strategy to stop Hillary at any cost/price, what happens is exactly as expected, A few Repubs comes out with the joke "Vote for Hillary", when they mean just the opposite, as I have pointed out so many times. If their strategy works, we will have a Repub in The WH for at least another four years, because no way can Obama win the GE.

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

You mean the right-wing Shelby Steele who is trapped in the 60s? THAT Shelby Steele?

For balance , a review of his latest book on Barack:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2170&recalcul=oui

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

wpost--your 1:52 post was brilliant.
Patrick--glad you chimed in.

No one I know is excusing Spitzer or McGreevy or Patterson--they all have owned up to their mistakes--that is the biggest difference--apart from Mark Foley and the undergae page thing---Larry Craig is still sitting in congress trying to get people to believe he "plead not-guilty before he plead guilty" or what-not---the same is true of the Obama speech--he has said on more than one occasion and in the speech he denounces Rev Wright's comments, he thinks they were wrong and divisive--more than once he has come right out and said they are woefully inappropriate and wrong---so what do you right-wing cons expect him to do? He took a bad situation and dealt with it honestly, he could have come out and made a big show about denouncing Wright and I am sure Wright would have understood "It was all for politics" but he didn't he was honest he said he could not disown the man--even as he denounces the comments. My grandfather once said the KKK was a good thing because they kept the "coloreds" in line--this is a man I love a man who has never been anything but loving to his Af-Am g-daughter-in-law and his Af-Am great-grandson---I tok those comments as though they came from the environment he was raised in (S. Ga.) and did not stop loving the man--all the clap trap about "you can choose your pastor"--is not taking into account the WHOLE of the man. Obviously this man brought something positive and loving into Obama's life--to squelch it down to something so cold as "you can choose your pastor" is missing the whole point. Have you never disagreed with someone you love, have you never been embarassed by someone you love, do you leave them . . .NOT when they continue to show you love and continue to be a good human being IN SPITE of their wrong beliefs.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama: Pied Piper

It's not controversial; it's right on.

How about this for a controversial point of view?

http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17032281.html

And I quote:

... [Shelby] Steele says that despite Obama supporters' assertions that race does not matter, it is at the very core of his candidacy. "Obama's campaign pretends to transcend race," Steele says, "but the paradox is that his campaign is all about race-and very little else."

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"proud, as per your 2p comment;

in this country, blacks can be racist. Whites cannot.

Double standard."

JD, I agree with you to some extent but there's also a double standard in terms of the effect of black racist language. Are you really hurt by some black guy calling you cracker, ofay, or peckerwood? When guys like Wright say things like the US government deliberately infects blacks with AIDS, he is admitting his own powerlessness. I say let the guy rant. He can't hurt you.

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

More misstatements, more emblishments and more problems.....

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The
Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's
primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of
Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In
academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details
matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have
tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times,
8/8/04]


LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his
community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing
residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's
asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings
and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the
story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the
asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My
Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to
deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news
accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at
Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama
does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]


Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was
engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' ".Obama has been too
self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that
nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity:
Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod
Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and
property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune
editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my
White House.'"White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to
revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that
lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written
plan says they could, with some restrictions. After being challenged on the
accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge --
at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what
had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago
Sun-Times,12/16/07]

Posted by: cyberaim | March 27, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

How about this for a controversial point of view?
http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17032281.html
And I quote:
... [Shelby] Steele says that despite Obama supporters' assertions that race does not matter, it is at the very core of his candidacy. "Obama's campaign pretends to transcend race," Steele says, "but the paradox is that his campaign is all about race-and very little else."

-----------------'


You mean the right-wing Shelby Steele who is trapped in the 60s? THAT Shelby Steele?

For balance , a review of his latest book on Barack:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2170&recalcul=oui

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Adrick writes "[Obama] has the eloquence and the experience to lead us in this discussion."

Throwing his white grandmother under the bus was hardly eloquent. Saying that she's just like the "typical white person" was not eloquent.

What Obama HAS done is show everybody that even he, the Great Orator, messed up and said offensive things once he stepped into that minefield un-aided by the teleprompter.

He hasn't elevated anything...he has dodged questions and made up his own questions to answer (that's the nice thing about speeches) - but it was a caluculated attempt to shift the focus, to regain the upper hand with the base.

If, as current polls predict, Barack Obama loses Pennsylvania by a double-digit margin on April 22, the truly ominous omen will not be the loss itself, but his campaign's catastrophic inability to tailor its message to vital demographics.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Mike, he did discuss the bigger issue in his speech. The hard fact is that there are millions of Americans who believe the crap Wright spouted."

And we are expected to believe that Obama, a 20 year loyal attendee, is *NOT* one of them?

What a joke.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

CNN and the FIX: Media LIARS


The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?

Posted by: logicaldoubtofhumansanity | March 27, 2008 02:21 PM

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

proud, as per your 2p comment;

in this country, blacks can be racist. Whites cannot.

Double standard.

Posted by: JD | March 27, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

logicaldoubtofhumansanity is right!

"The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?


Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

logicaldoubtofhumansanity is right!

"The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?


Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

So much copying and pasting here today...

Oh well, might as well join the clan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916_pf.html

George Will details how conservatives are the ones really helping the poor (they make the charitable contributions), while liberals mostly talk a good game. Of course, you could extend this argument to my hotbutton issue, school choice, as well.

Posted by: JD | March 27, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

Nice try. No Cigar.

The post you refer to was made by someone else, at another site, and you know it.

Its just another trick to try to discredit me.

It won't work.

You only discredit yourself.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

Nice try. No Cigar.

That's not my post, and you know it.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

or the cocain use by a current governor isn't going to bat an eye.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 02:17 PM
-------------------------------------
Didn't hurt W when he ran and stole the White House.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 27, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

13 million voters will remember these kinds of assinine comments from the Obama supporters. Keep it up.

'You are Clintocrats -- go start a new party'

Posted by: leichtman | March 27, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Mike, he did discuss the bigger issue in his speech. The hard fact is that there are millions of Americans who believe the crap Wright spouted. So, the bigger question is: are we going to face this? Are we going to acknowledge that on both sides of the racial divide there is racism and inequity? Or are we going to carry on -- business as usual -- know it exists, and pretend it doesn't?

He challenged us. He has the courage to face it. Do we as a People?

Furthermore, he has the eloquence and the experience to lead us in this discussion.

So, I ask you, Mike. Can you move past this event that started this to face the bigger issue? Or would you prefer to avoid the bigger issue, sweep it under the rug, and continue to focus on another diversionary issue?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

svreader, your hatred of Obama is obsessive. Psychotic, really. Are you passionately in love with him and feel that he hasn't returned that love? Write him a letter. Tell him how you really feel. Maybe he'll send you a used pair of underwear.

Posted by: edwcorey | March 27, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush."

Elsewhere you've said it was Hillary Clinton. Which is it -- Obama or Clinton?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

How about this for a controversial point of view?

http://www.hoover.org/research/focusonissues/focus/17032281.html

And I quote:

... [Shelby] Steele says that despite Obama supporters' assertions that race does not matter, it is at the very core of his candidacy. "Obama's campaign pretends to transcend race," Steele says, "but the paradox is that his campaign is all about race-and very little else."

According to Steele, the United States has not eradicated the twin specters of racism and "white guilt" over slavery. Steele contends that, despite outward appearances of competence and prominence, most African-Americans who have found success in mainstream America--politicians in particular--have adopted one of two "masks": that of the bargainer or that of a challenger. Steele has declared Obama a "bargainer," someone who, to gain acceptance from whites, is willing to avoid addressing America's history of racism. "Challengers," such as Jackson and Sharpton, obtain power by wielding racial stigma to elicit guilt from whites. The confrontational style of challengers, as evidenced by Jackson's and Sharpton's failed campaigns, tends to alienate most mainstream voters.
...

Posted by: jennifer.biddison | March 27, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

wpost4112 --

Read the article. Its about the fact that Obama is a total fraud, a product of teh chicago politicial machine.

Its about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

Its about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

AdrickHenry - "Supporters of Obama, however, accurately see that Obama [can do nothing wrong.] ... The speech he gave was ground-breaking in its honesty [even though he never bothered to answer the basic question of why he chose to listen to hate speech that he supposedly didn't agree with]. The next generation will read about it in their history books [as a clear example of how a documented power-driven liar could have swept the Democrat party again, and again, and again]."

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The poll itself already says "oversampled African Americans". Do you know what an "oversample" of a specific population within a poll means?

IT MEANS IT IS A BIASED POLL

So no effect? Are you kidding me? Normalize the poll results and you will see an overwhelming negative on the Wright scandal (ie normalize it to the population of 80% white, 20% African American). So again, no impact? which Kool-aid is the WaPo drinking?

Posted by: logicaldoubtofhumansanity | March 27, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Proud -- don't bother.

Can't you already hear the drones

"Larry Craig! Larry Craig! Larry Craig!"

If you mention 3 Democrat congressmen who conspired with Hussein, they'll just shout three times.

If you mention the NJ, NY, and new NY governors, they'll just shout louder.

So, a 2nd prostitution ring by a former governor or the cocain use by a current governor isn't going to bat an eye.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

You are right Proud, this story does have legs. Amongst the far-right fringe. And among white supremacists. And other fear and hate mongers.

Supporters of Obama, however, accurately see that Obama took this negative situation and used it for constructive purposes. The speech he gave was ground-breaking in its honesty. The next generation will read about it in their history books.

As for people on the fence -- those undecided -- well, they don't seem to be moved much either way. As evidenced by the poll CC cites.

So, yes, this story "has legs" for you and people of your ilk. But the rest of the country has moved on. I don't suspect you will -- I predict that you'll be trying to harp on this story for a quite a long while.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

All in all, this Wright controversy helps Obama. Now no one can be duped into thinking he's a Muslim.

Posted by: am9489 | March 27, 2008 02:12 PM

A silver lining after all!

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Jeremiah Wright made outlandish statements about race and Hillary Clinton lied about Bosnia. The problem for Clinton lovers, like you Chris, is Wright ain't on the ballot like try to make him to be and Hillary is. Straight up and down. End of discussion.

Posted by: Gharza | March 27, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

All in all, this Wright controversy helps Obama. Now no one can be duped into thinking he's a Muslim.

Posted by: am9489 | March 27, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

The truth about Obama from someone who has known him for years.
http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

-------------------

That's the best you got? An insecure reporter who is upset that Barack yelled at him? That's it?

My.


Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

More discussion from another site; this thing definitely has legs, don't kid yourselves Obama-ites...

Jim writes "Sen BO evidently took time from his precious schedule of saving our economy and making peace in our time possible to call for the firing of Don Imus for uttering a three word racial slur!

I suppose the good Sen went deaf and dumb on Sunday Morning when his pastor didn't use just racial slurs but defamed and incited his congregation over the supposed trangressions of whitey.

The great BO can't have it both ways "my good Rev says some stupid things, forget it" and fire that racist Imus he used a three word racial slur.

PS Didn't Imus try to do some serious butt kissing by having Rev Sharpton on his program and offering profuse apologies for his remarks. Never mind if your Grandma , "a typical white person" told you she was afraid of some black man -she is a racist just like Rev Wright.
Is the Rev Wright "a typical black person."?"

from:
http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/03/27/obama_seeks_to_quell_flap_over_pastor?page=full&comments=true#commentAnchor


Well, he does have a point. Wright didn't say "ho" though.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

from USMC_Mike:

"(Maybe he (Obama) can grow some facial hair and his voice will change.)"

What are you hoping for, Mike? That his voice will go from articulate, Harvard Law Review President, oratorical-genius TO dufus-sounding, can't-put-two-sentences-together-without-saying-um, West-Texas ignoramus?

Posted by: AdrickHenry | March 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"A nation which embraces torture, pre-emptive wars, invasions of sovereign countries, pollutes the environment, lives off the slave labor of poorer countries and legislates belief can no longer claim the moral high ground or pretend to be the last great hope of anything except humanity's basest desires"

still vvying for the moonbattiest award I see. I think you are defintiely in contention.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Fox isn't playing the Fix's Game...

The media has it's own agenda to elect Barack Obama, CNN, Chris Cizillia's Fix on the Wash Post have posts on the NBC-WSJ poll, without including the caveat which shows that the poll dissproportionately polled Black Americans.

Fox News has taken the high road. They have not called this a low point for Hillary Clinton. Though the results still are weighted disproportionately in its March 27th article.

"Barack Obama 's speech on race has left the public divided on whether he has sufficiently put the issue behind him, a poll shows.

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem I can see with Obama's speech is that is was written for and directed to mature, intelligent, rational adults.

Therefore, it is no wonder that so many pundits--not to mention the usual unmentionable irrational tiresome "contributors" on this blog--have had so much trouble saying anything sensible, much less insightful, about the speech.

I'm not insulting anyone here, because I'm certain that that last sentence--though grammatical precise and correct--will be too difficult in its construction for such people to comprend anyway.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 01:16 PM

Big Lie - It was a political speech written for GOP libs like you. He attacked two older typical white women, one who took care of him, and equated what Gerry said with wright.

He did not mention Hispanics or Asians even thought in the "future" they will be key to race/ethinic relations. Yes Whites will be about 50 percent of the population in 2050.

He did leave out all talk of racism by his core group of voters (obama cultist). White boys and girls who think looking down on black people and voting for Obama will make everything OK. They find the whitest black man they can to fit there needs and call every one who votes for someone else stupid or racist.

It was a 2nd year college speech circa 1985.

He told the white boys and girls what they wanted to here not the truth. Obama does not want to talk about race.

Posted by: mul | March 27, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

No wonder the R's are losing it. Just listened to Rush talk about how America is the world's best last hope. Nothing like turning a nation into an idol. Sounds just like Hitler's deification of Germany.

The world's last great hope are those who act justly and defend the inalienable rights of humanity, wherever they may be.

The founding fathers realized that the nation they were founding was another experiment in human governance. It could fail as easily as the many nations before it.

A nation which embraces torture, pre-emptive wars, invasions of sovereign countries, pollutes the environment, lives off the slave labor of poorer countries and legislates belief can no longer claim the moral high ground or pretend to be the last great hope of anything except humanity's basest desires.

America is not great by virtue of its existence. It is great only by virtue of its virtues.

So tragic that so many listen to such tripe. It's like people who are told they are good simply because they belong to a religion, mistaking membership for good works, ritual for good fruits, prayer for acts of charity, religious clothing for conversion of heart.

America is only as good as its actions.
No more, no less. To claim some innate divine superiority is as delusional as it is blasphemous.

But the weak and insecure always seek to clothe themselves in God's mantle when unable to do God's work.

The right is to be pitied when seduced by such a small-minded man.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Spitzer Linked to Second Prostitution Ring
Thursday, March 27, 2008

Disgraced former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is being linked to a second call girl ring called Wicked Models, which was busted by Manhattan police on Tuesday.


According to Obama's spiritual guide, prostitution rings were invented by the US government to destroy "people of liberal persuasion" so it's really not Spitzer's fault for going to them for 20 years.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters --

Obama can't win. He shouldn't even be in the race. He's unqualified, a fraud, and a fake.

The truth about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Media's own political agenda: Fox isn't playing.

Poll: Voters Divided Over Obama's Race Speech
by Associated Press
Thursday, March 27, 2008


Fox News is the only large media outlet so far to fairly report this poll result, adding the comment that the voters are divided over the Democratic race.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/poll-voters-divided-over-obamas-race-speech/

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Another equivocal poll and yet another reason for HRC to stick around, but let's start to look at the obvious. By now someone in her camp has broken the news to her that she is not going to be the democratic nominee in 2008, so she is already looking ahead to 2012. She's apparently smart enough to know that for her to have any chance then she and her team must make sure that Obama does not get elected POTUS.
Consider the following:
1. They are fully aware of the long odds of running a successful insurgent campaign from within the party of a sitting president.
2. They dread the thought of competing against an incumbent Obama with all of his current strengths AND 4 years of presidential experience.
3. They are betting that challenging a 76-year old GOP incumbent with no agenda other than endless war in the middle east will be easier.

To do this she must excercize the nuclear option to keep Obama out of the WH, even if that means forcing him to fight on for the democratic nomination while McCain sits tight and raises money. If McCain wins in November, this strategy will prove beyond a doubt that party loyalty and unity will always take a back seat to HRC's political ambitions.

The DNC and the uncommitted superdelegates need to wake up and realize that sitting on their hands until June or August plays perfectly into this strategy. The Clinton camp can not claim that they are the ones who are fighting for the enfranchisement of every democrat while they are also trying to flip pledged delegates. Further delay by party leadership only increases the chances of losing in November to McCain and of having the Clinton albatross hanging around the neck of the DNC in 2012.

Posted by: james.direnzo | March 27, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"So, finally the TRUTH comes out. They want to run against Obama because they know they can beat him in NOV. What all Clinton supporters have said from day one. This was never about anything else. "

First of all, you're arguing with your own sock puppet. Knock yourself out, though.

Second, you and your alias are the only people who think that the Republicans are gaming the vote in Clinton's favor. When it comes to the crossover, the VRWC (such as it is) is telling members to vote for Hill, not Obama.

Get your stories/personalities straight.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

radpat writes
"I'm not insulting anyone here, because I'm certain that that last sentence--though grammatical precise and correct--will be too difficult in its construction for such people to comprend anyway."


While I tend to agree with your sentiment, it appears you have been hoisted by your own petard...

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh lylepink, it's that vast right-wing conspiracy again that is ganging up on poor Hillary. There's no other possible reason. They must be the driving force that has reduced all her double-digit leads during the past year--you remember how she was leading in so many polls in so many states by so many points?? And now the conspiracy is at it again. It's just not fair!

Or maybe it is as Jon Stewart said in reference to the way Giuliani was also so clearly "the choosen one" for so long: "And then . . . the people started voting."

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

So what? drindl says, so, he got two pinocchios for the lying

Proud - if a Lib ever got caught telling the truth - it would be big news indeed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

The Repub strategy to stop Hillary is being overlooked by most folks, and the best example I can think of is the change of Registration in Pa. to vote for Obama. Most Polling have had Hillary winning by 10 to 12% for months, and when 50 or 60K Repubs voting for Obama, it will reduce the winning margin by a bunch, and that is the whole point.

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 01:20 PM

So, finally the TRUTH comes out. They want to run against Obama because they know they can beat him in NOV. What all Clinton supporters have said from day one. This was never about anything else.

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The truth about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

We already had Bush for eight years based on lies, the point is that we're not getting someone better with Obama, who has lied about getting the votes counted. His campaign has dragged their feet and slowed down the process.

Obama talks about change and doing things differently, creating a civil tone in politics; but how can it be that his supporters are foul mouthed disciples of a campaign to change the tone? It doesn't jive? The followers of the message, dont't follow the message themselves? Then the message and the messenger are a crock.

The arrogant presumption that he is a MLK, or JFK, and the response to him, the cult like repetitive phrasing should be enough for most sane, level-headed Americans to be thoroughly turned off. We are just not all in sync with the idea that we'd have to chant and sway to Obama's beat.

In short his beat is deceit:
to deceive about Rezko, Wright, Farrakin is akin to the Neo-con cover-up. Obama has alliances that don't sit well with the American public and the media is trying to stop up the plug before the well runs dry..

For the media to attempt to pull off something so underhanded as disproportionate polling just to keep up appearances,ratings, is Rovian...

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The Repub strategy to stop Hillary is being overlooked by most folks, and the best example I can think of is the change of Registration in Pa. to vote for Obama. Most Polling have had Hillary winning by 10 to 12% for months, and when 50 or 60K Repubs voting for Obama, it will reduce the winning margin by a bunch, and that is the whole point.

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno21 | March 27, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"as is probably obvious in my posts, I type quickly and rarely preview before submitting."

Painfully obvious there is very little thoughtful review before you post. But keep typing, freedom of speech and what not.

I had to look to see what you yokels were bickering about. Dude, typing UCAL instead of UCLA is a typo. Did you watch the game? Where do you get USC from? POOOO-SEEUUURRR!

Hey, you could use the Hillary defense: "I was tired. I misspoke."

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

I have seen the entire Wright 9/11 sermon:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ

and while I still am not comfortable with his approach in dealing with his issues with America, I have far greater concerns with the fact that the media deliberately fed the American public, a distorted view of Rev. Wright's position. I think that it is extremely dangerous that the media has the ability and effect of swaying the public to "view" things exactly the way they want us to.

That is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, as there are many little egos running around with very self-serving personal agendas and now they clearly see how efficiently they are able to set any agenda they choose... scary stuff

Posted by: nerakami | March 27, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse


"SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Facing the challenge of overhauling the death-penalty law in a state rocked by revelations of botched prosecutions, Illinois state Sen. John Cullerton made a tactical political decision.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to separate one controversial proposal from the broader package, one that would require videotaping interrogations in murder cases. Police and prosecutors opposed it so much that keeping it in the broader package threatened to sink the whole effort.

The state senator who later took on the task of pushing the proposal to videotape interrogations was Barack Obama.

Obama worked with Democrats, Republicans and especially with police and prosecutors to fashion a bill that all of them could support. By the time it reached the Senate floor, everyone was on board. It passed in a unanimous vote, and is now Illinois law.

How Obama did it reveals a lot about his political style, which is at the core of his appeal. It defines an approach to political problem solving that he vows can change how Washington does business.

Obama's record in the Illinois Senate (1996-2004) shows that he often was able to bring together opposing forces in one room, emerge with agreement and enact legislation."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31759.html

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem I can see with Obama's speech is that is was written for and directed to mature, intelligent, rational adults.

Therefore, it is no wonder that so many pundits--not to mention the usual unmentionable irrational tiresome "contributors" on this blog--have had so much trouble saying anything sensible, much less insightful, about the speech.

I'm not insulting anyone here, because I'm certain that that last sentence--though grammatical precise and correct--will be too difficult in its construction for such people to comprend anyway.

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

So? drindl says, so what if Obama got two pinocchios for lying about his discussion with the Prime Minister of Canada? So what if he got two pinocchios for lying about his knowledge of his 20-year mentor and pastor's anti-American hate-whitey teachings to the black community?

He also got two pinnochios for lying about his pledge to get public financing. He pledged to take it if the R nominee did. Then, it turns out he really didn't mean it when he took the pledge. Now he claims he never took the pledge!

Fact Checker says: The Obama campaign has said different things at different times on the issue of public financing. Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.


The pinocchios are adding up for the land-of-Lincolner.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

The"Truth" -- as is probably obvious in my posts, I type quickly and rarely preview before submitting. Of course, I wouldn't put it pass a worthless lib to personally attack someone's intelligence over a typo.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what Obama's minister said. The hateful sham televangelists that McCain begged to support him also said america was responsible for 9/11, remember? But frankly I don't care what any of them say.

I am more interested in what the actual candidates say -- and more important, what they will do as president. and what McCain will do is exactly the same as Bush.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

"Roughly three in ten of those tested said they had either not seen the speech or had no opinion of it (who are these people?!)."

____________

They're called people who work for a living.

Posted by: maricopajoe | March 27, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

You would think the Washington Post would draw a more rational group of posters. I firmly believe in free speech, but some of these posts are a little scary. Maybe there should be more supervision and limits on internet access in the psychiatric wards.

Posted by: joy2 | March 27, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

So what? drindl says, so, he got two pinocchios for the lying about telling the prime minister of Canada one thing about NAFTA but really meaning sometyhing completely different.

He also got two pinocchios for not telling the truth about his awareness of Wright's racist anti-white anti-American teachings.

Fact Checker says "It is clear from his Philadelphia speech that he was more aware of the potentially inflammatory nature of his Wright's sermons than he previously acknowledged."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

As former ambassador Joseph Wilson points out in his recent post, the Obama campaign's all out negative assault on Hillary Clinton has no doubt contributed to Obama's success in diverting attention from his Rev. Wright problem. In great detail, Wilson exposes just how low members of the well-oiled Obama machine have stooped in their efforts to smear Hillary Clinton and push Obama over the finish line. Here's the link:

http://katalusis.blogspot.com/2008/03/joe-wilson-exposes-obama-camps.html

Posted by: ichief | March 27, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"They will have to ignore his unwavering message of hope since the start of the campaign and instead focus on the condemned words of a preacher from another generation."

When I listen to Obama talk about the economy I don't hear much of that message of home. What I hear is the world is ending. Are we really so bad off after 25 years of booming growth? A little optimism if you please.

As far as Wright: I agree with you that his words are outdated and anachronistic, but we are not the ones who spent 20 years in that preacher's church listening to him spew hate. This man is not a passing acquaintance of Obama, this is a man at the center of his life for decades. That does count for something.

Posted by: KenStein | March 27, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

vammap writes
"We oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup."


If you're interested in an explanation, there are several posts above that address your concerns.

.

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

poor pitiful drindl, nothing to do all day but cut and paste from leftist web hate-sites.

Is that realy how you find "value" in your life?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

TWO Media Outlets: Sorry forget to take out MSNBC which did include the caveat.

CNN
The FIX

All reported this without including the caveat:

We oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

"We told CNN today on the phone that they put up information on their political ticker without the caveat that the poll used to show Clinton's favorability numbers down is the same polll MSNBC used; the only difference is MSNBC included the caveat that Black Americans were polled disproportionately. We demanded they include that caveat.

They hung up on us."

Snicker, snicker, guffaw, guffaw. Of course they hung up on you - you probably sounded like an uneducated lunatic.

Who, by the way, is "we"? you and svreader?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Proof that media hype does not equal real hype. You guys need to get LIVES. Just as I predicted, no one really cared about Wright other than people that were never interested in voting for Obama in the first place. I call those people closed-minded. Surprisingly enough their minds never opened before, during or after the "controversy."

Again - who cares about what someone's pastor said? As an atheist I find it funny how much fuss you people make about your religions.

http://www.think.mtv.com/briantrich/

Posted by: thecrisis | March 27, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno21 | March 27, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

poor pitiful zouk. nothing to do all day long but obssess about me.

sad sack.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse


"Yesterday on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) claimed that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) never said that the Iraq war would be won easily:

'He has never said that this war would be easy.'

Graham's statement is absolutely false. In the run-up to war, McCain eagerly proclaimed on multiple occasions that the war would be "easy," giving rosy predictions about the daunting war ahead:

"Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women."" [CNN, 9/24/02]

"But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily." [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

When Alan Colmes countered Graham's statement with a barrage of similar quotes from McCain, Graham responded: "He said that beating the Saddam Hussein regime militarily was quick and it was lethal," implying McCain knew the post-invasion would be difficult. But McCain has displayed ignorance about that as well:

"We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we're not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies." [CNN, 9/29/02]

"There's not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along." [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

McCain even reflected on the war last year and said, "it was easy." "Well, it was easy. It was easy. I said we -- a military operation would be easy. It was easy. We were greeted as liberators," he told Tim Russert on Meet the Press in January 2007."

JOhn McCain. Certifiable loony.' We were greeted as liberators' Oh look, now he's turned into Dick Cheney. And Iraq -- it was EASY. Tell the families of the 4000 dead soldiers that.

Not a history of Shia and Sunni clashes? Only since the year of 632.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"The reason I stopped posting for a while, and may stop completely, is that its a waste of my time."

Thank you for ackowledging that. You sound contrite and realize you have made a mistake. There, there, go back to Columbus.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't care about Obama's pastor.
And I don't care about Hillary's fundamentalist prayer group, the Family.
We're electing a president remember? As long as they don't hear God telling them to invade another sovereign nation as the present one does.

Posted by: joy2 | March 27, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

They must have gone the Abramoff/DeLay school of economics.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:28 PM


As I said before - Libs best defense is always - everyone does it. Everyone keeps 10K in their freezer. everyone imports chicks for the weekend. everyone smokes pot and snorts coke and cheats on their wife.

I saw Maher last night. On the show was the most moonbattiest of libs - a professor of African studies at Princeton who had no clue about reality. Even Barney Frank tangled with her as he appeared to be extreme right wing compared to her.

she doesn't think there is anything morally wrong with hookers, unless they are forced into the practice. cheating is just fine. How is it that Libs always know so much more than anyone else? this professor of African studies (code for fake academic credentials, the same as woman studies and ethnic studies) seems to think she knows plenty more about econ than the chairman of the finance comittee.

the typical Lib thinks they know more about everything than you, especialy what's good for you.

the moonbat drindl is an excellent example. she knows more about the war than the generals, more about the economy than the Fed, more about social security than the GAO, more about health care than anyone, more about energy than Exxon, etc.

the fact is, if it weren't for cutting and pasting from hate-sites, she would have no use at all. Her degree is probably in woman's studies. (code for feminazi).

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

When people find out the truth about Chicago Barry Obama, he'll become unelectable to anything.

If the press doesn't do its job now, the truth will still come out before November, and he'll lose the election.

The truth will be the end of Chicago Barry Obama.

The real Obama is a real jerk.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

jnoel --

He will be. Wait and watch.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:29 PM

Well until that time we will have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

'Obama got two pinocchios from the Fact Checker for furiously denying his lies about NAFTA-gate.'

and McCain got four pinocchios from the Fact Checker on several occasions -- so your point is?

meanwhile iraq melts down..

"Violence continues across southern Iraq today, as radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to end his crucial cease-fire by calling for the "downfall of the U.S.-backed government."

In response, the administration has gone on a desperate PR blitz to label renewed violence in Iraq as "byproduct of the success of the surge." "It's "what critics have wanted to see," said White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, calling it a struggle led by Iraqi security forces.

Today -- as rockets rain down on the Green Zone and two American soldiers died -- Bush cast the activity as a "very positive moment" in an interview with the Times of U.K.:

[Bush] backed the Iraqi Government's decision to "respond forcefully" to the spiralling violence by "criminal elements" and Shia extremists in Basra. "It was a very positive moment in the development of a sovereign nation that is willing to take on elements that believe they are beyond the law," the President said.

It's hard to see what Bush sees as positive. The explosion that burst an oil pipeline in Basra today? Tens of thousands of Shiite protesters in Baghad? A murdered civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security operation?"

In reality, the violence is undoing the very goals of Bush's surge. Iraqi forces aren't trying to restore "the law," as Bush says, but are trying to do the opposite -- suppress its political enemies before the October elections, historian Reidar Vissar noted. Most ironically, if U.S.-backed efforts "succeed," Iran's hand in Iraq will be strengthened. IPS' Gareth Porter explains:

The Badr Organisation and the ISCI had always been and remained the most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq, having been established, trained and funded by the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] from Shiite exiles in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war."


Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Very telling that all the Repubs here spend all their time railing against Obama, and not a positive word about McCain.

One wonders, if he's such a weak candidate, as they remind us ad infinitum, why bother?

Must be depressing to always be against something rather than for something. Maybe that's why they are so bitter.

Hm.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

You write, ". . . even as conventional wisdom seems to suggest that the race is Obama's to lose." (One could quibble about that "seems" but it is your blog, not mine.)

My question is "How could he lose it?" And please skip the political junkies' hope that we'll have this race to talk about all summer. Realistically, how could he lose it?

Posted by: Pajaro1 | March 27, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Three Media Outlets:

CNN
MSNBC
The FIX

All reported this without including the caveat:

We oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup.

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address

-------------------

Sources?

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

jnoel --

He will be. Wait and watch.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is no different. when there isn't much to write down, you have to puff up what you have."

Yeah, Obama's the new Puff-Daddy

In addition to liberal padding of his own resume, he's also very fond of parsing the truth. Not surprising for a liberal elitist who pretends to be a uniter, but...

Obama got two pinocchios from the Fact Checker for furiously denying his lies about NAFTA-gate.

recap: A top staffer from the Obama campaign had telephoned the Canadian ambassador to warn him that the candidate would soon be speaking out against NAFTA, the 1993 free trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The staffer told the ambassador that "the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric and should not be taken at face value."

Obama said "I do not have to clarify it. The Canadian embassy already clarified it by saying that the story was not true. Our office has said that the story was not true. I think it is important for viewers to understand that it was not true...It did not happen."

This is a case where the technical parsing of the truth by the Obama campaign falls well short of the whole truth. This is just one example.

There is a pattern here, and, much like Clinton's pattern of half-truths and misstatements, Obama is quite guilty of the same game.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

the Libs replied, "we don't ask where free money comes from."

------------------

They must have gone the Abramoff/DeLay school of economics.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:28 PM | Report abuse

OOPS, sorry. Chris EVEN YOU didn't include the caveat. OH Chris when will you guys just tell the truth instead of spinning. Here I was giving you the benefit of the doubt!


The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday this week by Hart-McInturff and surveyed 700 registered voters, which gives the poll a margin of error of +/- 3.7 percent. In addition, we oversampled African-Americans in order to get a more reliable cross-tab on many of the questions we asked in this poll regarding Sen. Barack Obama's speech on race and overall response to last week's Rev. Jeremiah Wright dustup. (Watch Tim Russert's analysis of the poll results.)

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

more corrupt republican dirty tricks...

'Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Wednesday called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to explain the decision to eliminate the public corruption unit in Los Angeles that has been investigating Rep. Jerry Lewis's (R-Calif.) ties to a lobbying firm.
The U.S. Attorney for the central district of California in Los Angeles reassigned the 17 lawyers in the public corruption unit and disbanded it earlier this month. The decision has stirred ill will and low morale within the office and raised questions about whether pending and future public corruption cases will be rigorously pursued, according to press accounts.
Attorneys in the Los Angeles office have spent years reviewing an FBI investigation into Lewis's connection to a lobbying firm and the earmarks its clients received. Lewis has doled out more than a million dollars in attorney fees related to the probe.

Attorneys in the special corruption unit were assigned to other sections of the office and were told that their cases against public officials would be mixed in with other cases. Because cases against public officials require extensive work and result in fewer prosecutions, Feinstein is concerned they would be shunted aside for those that result in more convictions.''

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Daisy77 --

Wrights packaged his sermons as a CD set.

Many of them were full of anti-white, anti-semitic, and Anti-American ravings.

But this is the man Obama chose as his "Spirtual Advisor"

He like a machine. He calculates. He has no heart. He doesn't care about anybody but himself.

But his supporters and the "what me investigate?" press sell him as a "saint"

He's the farthest thing from that.

He's made a lot of enemies from screwing people over the years.

He's got a lot of people that are really, really, angry at him and can't wait for him to be publicly disgraced as the fraud his is.


Barry Obama's no saint.

He's a real jerk who only cares about himself.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

That was the crap PPP(A) phone poll in NC both times. It was probably measuring error. It was a push button poll which are very unreliable.

-----------------

I wonder if instead it reflected Spring Break at the colleges.

This may still be a problemn for Barack as many NC colleges/universities will either be out of session, in exams or amidst gradiuation on the day of NC primary.

Maybe a problem, maybe not. College kids voted in highest percentage in Iowa, and have dropped since.

But NC demographic shift in last 10 years are rich in Obama likelies.


Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"I've always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.

It's such fun watching liberals turn on the Clintons! The bitter infighting among Democrats is especially enjoyable after having to listen to Democrats hyperventilate for months about how delighted they were to have so many wonderful choices for president.

Now liberals just want to be rid of the Clintons -- which is as close to actual mainstream thinking as they've been in years. So the media suddenly notice when Hillary "misspeaks," while rushing to make absurd excuses for much greater outrages by her opponent.

Liberals are even using the Slick Willy defense when Obama is caught fraternizing with a racist loon. When Bill Clinton was exposed as a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar, his defenders said that everybody is a philandering, adulterous, pathological liar.

And now, when B. Hussein Obama is caught in a 20-year relationship with a raving racist, his defenders scream that everybody is a racist wack-job.

In the Obama speech on race that Chris Matthews deemed "worthy of Abraham Lincoln," B. Hussein Obama defended Wright's anti-American statements, saying:

"For the men and women of Rev. Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table."

So in the speech the media are telling us is on a par with the Gettysburg Address, B. Hussein Obama casually informed us that even blacks who seem to like white people actually hate our guts.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25728

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

really, you need the whole story:

Courtesy of The New York Times, I'm proud to present to you a brand new member of the Bush Administration War Profiteer Hall of Shame: 22 year-old Efraim Diveroli, who's company AEY has been awarded approximately $300 million in contracts by the Pentagon.

How does a 22 year-old get a multi-million dollar defense contract? you ask. "AEY's proposal represented the best value to the government," the Army tells the Times. (Never mind that AEY was headed by a guy who'd been busted by the police for carrying a fake ID.)

AEY's fattest contract came in January of last year, when a Pentagon contract made AEY, "which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach,... the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan's army and police forces." AEY's VP is 25 and a licensed masseur. AEY also had a $5.7 million contract for rifles for Iraqi forces, among others.

As the Times found out, AEY fulfilled that contract by dealing with a variety of shady arms dealers (one Czech, one Swiss) to get their hands on ammo stockpiles in the old Eastern bloc. And as far as ensuring the quality of the munitions? Here's how it went in Albania:

Albania offered to sell tens of millions of cartridges manufactured as long ago as 1950. For tests, a 25-year-old AEY representative was given 1,000 cartridges to fire, according to Ylli Pinari, the director of the arms export agency at the time of the sale.
No ballistic performance was recorded, he said. The rounds were fired by hand.

Not surprisingly, the Afghan army has been unhappy with the product. AEY shipped the decades-old ammo in cardboard boxes -- apparently to save money on shipping charges. And the Times reports that the boxes arrived in Afghanistan spilling out of the boxes, "revealing ammunition manufactured in China in 1966." It's illegal to deal in Chinese arms.'

precious. your tax money at' work'.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I saw Rendell - He was putting on a friendly face. The Problem is not the Lib women that are spouting off it is the working class dems. They do not like this and they don't know Obama. They do vote GOP often.


-------------------

I'd buy that. But I think their defection will be offset by defection of Indies and lefty Repubs to Barack.

Nor am I convinced they will defect once Hillary supports Barack as she must do to have any future political career.

Racism will certainly rear its ugly head, but, imo, not enough to lose Barack the general election. Americans want to feel good about themselves again after 8 dispiriting years and the Obama momentum will carry many along who want to be part of making history.

All part of politics in America.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

"What he did in Chicago is Criminal."
Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:10 PM

Assuming everything you believe/know about him is true, why hasn't he been brought up on charges?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse


'How does a 22 year-old get a $300 million defense contract to supply arms to the Afghan army? First, make sure you're not zinged with a felony when police find your fake ID. Then hire a licensed masseur to be your VP. Find some shady arms dealers, make the lowest bid and voila -- you're in business with the Bush administration.'

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see the J. Wright sound bites haven't totally derailed the Obama campaign. Yes, we will see replays during the general election, but I understand some members of the DNC are already planning solid ammunition to use against McCain in the general for some of his outlandish remarks and flip flops. I don't think the DNC or Obama will take future references to Wright like sheep led to the slaughter. While I clearly recognize the Obama campaign must be relieved to see Wright off center stage, I don't understand why someone, perhaps an Obama surrogate, hasn't compiled short sound bites of many of Wright's more glorious quotes extolling the audience to help the suffering poor and homeless, live exemplary lives, shun the abuses of modern life: drugs, alcohol, materialism. If Wright indeed preached 3 sermons a week for over 30 years, I suspect there are many interesting sound bites that could serve as a counter attack to the prevailing You Tube quotes that Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity and friends keep playing ad nauseum. I have read too many articles from people claiming they attended the Trinity congregation and, like Obama, claimed they never heard incendiary speeches like the sound bites we heard. Why not package some of Wright's higher-minded quotes?

Posted by: Daisy77 | March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

" John McCain returned to the campaign trail from his weeklong trip to Europe and the Middle East Monday talking about successes in Iraq, and the need to stay the course there."

"STAY THE COURSE.." notice how fast McCain has morphed into Bush? He can't say 'the surge is working' now -- as Iraq implodes in violence... so now we're back to 'stay the course' at YEAR 6.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Readers might find this interesting:

"Hillary's Rev. Wright
His name is Richard Mellon Scaife."
By Timothy Noah
Updated Tuesday, March 25, 2008

@
http://www.slate.com/id/2187473/

Posted by: 1142739192 | March 27, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Saddam Paid for Democrats' Iraq Trip

Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday.

the Libs replied, "we don't ask where free money comes from."

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

CNN-1-212-275-7800

You're not going to find CNN's phone number on their web site, or on the internet, you have to call Information.

We told CNN today on the phone that they put up information on their political ticker without the caveat that the poll used to show Clinton's favorability numbers down is the same polll MSNBC used; the only difference is MSNBC included the caveat that Black Americans were polled disproportionately. We demanded they include that caveat.

They hung up on us.


THANKS CHRIS FOR YOUR HONESTy, RARE IN THE MEDIA TODAY...

Posted by: vammap | March 27, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Bush lawsuits in state and federal court to block the recounts

I recall it was the selective recounts, only in Dem counties, while ignoring the rest of the state and the military votes. that is not in the spirit of "every vote counts".

drindl, I think it is obvious enough that even a cultist Obama-ite can see it, that if there is anyone of this blog who prepetrates all day hate - it is most certainly you.

what is so wrong in your life that it has lead to this as your career objective?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

What is not typical is that within one week after his race speech, Barcak went from a single point lead in the North Carolina polls to a current 20 point lead.

Hillary's voters will come around post convention. Even Rendell admitted last night that Hillary's supporters will not end up voting for McCain and chance another Supreme Court nominee to take away Roe vs Wade.

Indies are still firmly with Barack since McCain's defection to the far right with his flip-flop on torture, tax cuts, Hagee, etc.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:49 AM

That was the crap PPP(A) phone poll in NC both times. It was probably measuring error. It was a push button poll which are very unreliable.

Obama has always been ahead by about 10 points in NC.

I saw Rendell - He was putting on a friendly face. The Problem is not the Lib women that are spouting off it is the working class dems. They do not like this and they don't know Obama. They do vote GOP often.


Now here is some food for thought - 43 white males in a row. Sexism alive and well in the dem party and the Washington Post (even Obama supporters can feel it). Real racism will be much stronger in the GE then the primary. Obama just told the nation several things - I don't know nothing - Many black people GD America because of past wrongs - they are raciest - All the white past leaders like Bill and Gerry are Racist. This is just not good on any level. Group identity is the strongest force in human relations, see Iraq - Obama just told many 'typical white' people he is not part of there group. If that takes hold he will not win period.

Like Obama I pray to Jesus every day

Posted by: mul | March 27, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

roud, when I was a kid, I embellished my resume too. when I watched my boss do things or helped him by fetching or calculating, when it hit my resume it said that I lead and designed the whole thing. Obama is no different. when there isn't much to write down, you have to puff up what you have.

---------------------

Kinda like saying you came under enemy fire when you were actually accepting flowers from a child?

That kind of resume padding??

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

jnoel --

Yes.

The Real Obama is a real jerk.

His supporters ignore anything that differs from his "cover story"

The reason I stopped posting for a while, and may stop completely, is that its a waste of my time.

I wanted to see the press vett him before the nomination so that we'd get a good,, electable, Democratic candidate.

If Obama gete the nomination, he's going to lost by a landslide.

I'll vote for McCain out of protest, and so will many other people who don't approve of his dirty tactics..

Did you know that he won in Chicago by forcing everyone else off the ballot?

I'm angry at the fact that the press papers over the fact that his entire career has been a continual set of PR fabrications.

He's never actually done any real work in government, just gotten credit for the work done by others.

I'm pissed as hell that the press hasn't picked up the story about Obama's slums yet.

I'm going to grin from ear to ear whenn they do.

Obama's a slick, slimy chicago politician who presents himself as a saint and people swallow his BS hook line and sinker.

He has a history of using people then throwing them away.

What he did in Chicago is Criminal.

Obama supporters don't even care.

That pisses me off the most.


Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

'ABC News' Bret Hovell reports: Sen. John McCain will be joined on the campaign trail by a sometimes contentious former rival Thursday for a fundraising swing through the mountain west.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the onetime Republican presidential candidate, will join McCain to raise money in Salt Lake City and Denver.'

What a great duo. Flipfloppin John and Switcheroo Mitty. They change positions so fast you get whiplash.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

...as recent as yesterday at lunch a white Baptist conservative friend of mine remared about teh speech and used it as an opening dialogue to talk about race with some Af-Am work associates who were having lunch with us....

----------------
Thanks chadibuins. Your story resonates with my experiences. Regardless of how the people I know feel about Barack, there is an awareness that he has spoken truth and has allowed an opening to talk about race....and that alone brings a certain respect, however grudging.

Every Easter in Richmond there is a huge street "parade" down one of the main drags...which by the way is dotted with huge statues of Confederate generals...and Arthur Ashe. As a bunch of us were "parading" down the street, we suddenly became aware that the crowd was 99% white and we began talking about why that was. It would never have happened pre-speech. Our consciousness has been raised and I think it will lead to real societal change.

That speech is changing America, however subtly, however slowly. And that is how lasting change occurs.


Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The results of the NBC/WSJ poll are encouraging indeed. This means that Obama's bold gamble on the basic intelligence and decency of the American people may be paying off. We really do respond positively when spoken to like adults as happened in Obama's Philadelphia address. Serious topics (including race, war, and economics) presented with deliberation, honesty, and empathy will be examined by the American people who welcome Senator Obama's refreshingly open and complex approach to the issues. What a contrast with the current inhabitant of the White House whose anti-intellectual stance is dangerous and detached from reality.

The new polls also show that Americans do not appreciate the distractions, the mudslinging, the pandering, and the knee-capping currently being passed off as political discourse, as Senator Clinton's rising negativity ratings demonstrate decisively.

Posted by: dee5 | March 27, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Quick summary of Obama's economic speech:

the government needs to enact massive regulation. corporations are evil.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

noon and kook is here to spew hate all day.

"Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force."

that is a 'path' --frankly, i read it, mark. pretty thin gruel. he's still done more than McCain, who in regards to health care, the economy, etc -- has 0 ideas and 0 clue.

'Hate-ington Post and the other worshippers.'

i see you're aping the moron. i guess all republicans really ARE stupid.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

zouk - I read your post and note that the only group that can snark about FL/MI without contorting into a pretzel is the GOP.

However, while you bring up the Sore/Loserman aspect of FL2K, for the sake of equanimity let's remember that the Dem "Every Vote Counts" was in response to Bush lawsuits in state and federal court to block the recounts, and the GOP strategy then as is the Obama one now is to run out the clock.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Proud, when I was a kid, I embellished my resume too. when I watched my boss do things or helped him by fetching or calculating, when it hit my resume it said that I lead and designed the whole thing. Obama is no different. when there isn't much to write down, you have to puff up what you have.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"The new NBC/WSJ Poll is about the best job of skewing for their Favorite I have seen."

This is always an internal reality check for me: when I start arguing that respected pollsters are skewing the results because of their bias, that's a very strong indication my guy (or gal) is losing and I need to figure out a way to accept it and move on with my life.

Posted by: novamatt | March 27, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"Behind the Pentagon's closed doors, U.S. military leaders told President Bush they are worried about the Iraq war's mounting strain on troops and their families.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff did say senior commanders in Iraq should make more frequent assessments of security conditions, an idea that appeared aimed at increasing pressure for more rapid troop reductions.

The chiefs' concern is that U.S. forces are being worn thin, compromising the Pentagon's ability to handle crises elsewhere in the world.'

we're risking our own security to babysit a civil war... lunacy.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, end of my tea break, but I will look for your reply. On the sampling issue, does it work like this?

1] We need 400 for a valid sample. We have 400, but only 50 are black. 50/400 is the correct proportion.

2] We want a valid sample of black voters. We interview 400 of them.

3] When we report the universal sample, we weight the black sample not as 400/750, but as 50/400.

Is that close to what you mean? I just want to understand.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Statistically speaking the sample size drives the accuracy of the resulting data."

Partially true. It is also the sampling method employed. for example, if you call homes only from 12-4 during the day, you have a biased sample, it is not completely random as is required for good statistics.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

wpost your comments today and yesterday have been particularly enlightened, well-reasoned and intelligent--some of the best reads on the site (sometimes including the actual column) Well said!

I agree Wright will be used by the GOP and 527's--however, from what I have seen (and again, just my own unscientific sampling) while Wright's sermons has been decried and he chastised, even my conservative "Rush listening" aquaintances are commenting favorably on Obama handling the issue--as recent as yesterday at lunch a white Baptist conservative friend of mine remared about teh speech and used it as an opening dialogue to talk about race with some Af-Am work associates who were having lunch with us. My frien will not vote for Obama in the Fall, I am sure--but the point I am making and I believe the topic of this blog is wheter Wright will have a lasting affect--my assumption is that Obama's speech was able to shift the conversation from WHAT he said to WHY . . . and that is a good thing--of course, like wpost, I can only speak to my acquaintances in Jacksonville, a town which was recently described as a place "Bush likes to come to when he needs a hug" upon his Presidential visit last week--not exactly your bastion of liberalism.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

New poll out of California:

Obama 49 - McCain 40
Clinton 46 - McCain 43

Favorable/unfavorable ratings:
Obama 61-34 (+27)
McCain 49-45 (+4)
Clinton 45-52 (-7)

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I am watching Polls closely along with how the change of registration by Repubs to Dem. This is of particular importance in Pa., where there are no X-Over vote. I highly suspect most of these votes will go to Obama, as I have been saying for months. The new NBC/WSJ Poll is about the best job of skewing for their Favorite I have seen. Their trying to explain how the questions were asked and Data collected should raise many Red Flags.

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Fool did you see the poll on Hillary supporters voting for Obama in the GE. Very high negatives in many polls. Don't strain yourself trying to read polls.
That is were things hurt. Also lost to Mac with indies.
Obama has a core support of 40 percent (WP cultist ect). He lost some and got it back. That does not mean he got through preacher man.
Typical

------------------------------

What is not typical is that within one week after his race speech, Barcak went from a single point lead in the North Carolina polls to a current 20 point lead.

Hillary's voters will come around post convention. Even Rendell admitted last night that Hillary's supporters will not end up voting for McCain and chance another Supreme Court nominee to take away Roe vs Wade.

Indies are still firmly with Barack since McCain's defection to the far right with his flip-flop on torture, tax cuts, Hagee, etc.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Too bad about you drindl, now that you've become a member of the cult of Obama and refuse to discuss or even entertain the notion that he says one thing and means another, aka misstating the truth on many occasions.

Now that you've hitched your wagon to Team Obama, much like Bill Richardson -or as they now refer to his in the campaign, "El Hombre" - you better just keep kissing his as* and carrying the water for Hate-ington Post and the other worshippers.

Don't worry, once you've got him as a general election candidate for sure, the real fun starts!

Maybe by then Obama will allow the press to actually talk to him and answer questions. All he does now is give lectures and pre-scripted speeches...no wonder they think he's a stiff and a phony. He is.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

bsimon wrote:
"That might not be as interesting a demographic to whomever paid for the poll."

Bingo- that is the problem with most of these polls. They have an agenda. Give me raw data, like this;

Facebook.com Supporters:
Hillary has: 139,528
Barack has: 723,006

Now that says something- albeit largely the younger generation. I wish I could see the number of their Linkedin.com connections, but that appears hidden.

Posted by: davidmwe | March 27, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

drindl, proud cited MSM sources for her notes on BHO's exaggerated resume. It was too long. She should have made three separate posts, probably. But go back and read it. It is not a series of cheap shots.

Proud believes that BHO is less than he claims, and she is supporting that position. I must defend her on that because I criticized her for harping on "Wright" and now she is NOT harping on Wright.

Look, you have cited MSM to bolster your expressed anxieties that McC has turned neocon. You were able to worry me about that. Why cannot Proud worry me about BHO's credibility?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

"Every vote counts." Remember the Democrats' slogan of 2000 and 2004?

This year, it needs an asterisk: "Every vote counts: (*This offer not available in Florida and Michigan.)"

The party that sent herds of lawyers to Florida to count every vote at least once in 2000 has somehow decided that Florida's entire Democratic Primary will not count in 2008. The party that spread bogus fears about uncounted Ohio votes in 2004 is telling Michigan their whole primary will go uncounted.

In Ohio, one superdelegate equals about 15,600 primary voters. Most are uncommitted, which could be profitable. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Obama has spent nearly $700,000 to buy superdelegate votes, and Clinton has spent $230,000.

So much for the party of the little guy. I'm trying to imagine what headlines would say if Republicans let fat cats and party hacks sell their "super" votes. Maybe something like ...

"Selected, not elected."


http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/COL05/803270326/1009/EDIT

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

when i was a kid in the fifties, our old preacher used to shriek out hellfire and damnation on the Jews -- because he said they killed Jesus.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 10:04 AM

And look at the result, you turned out overflowing with hate. your parents should have known better.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 27, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Ken Stein writes, "Wright hasn't immediately derailed Obama, but this is the gift that keeps on giving. This issue is not going away, and the more people hear it, the worse it will be for Obama."

If what you say is true, Americans will have to ignore a lot of facts about Senator Obama:

They will have to ignore his multiracial heritage.

They will have to ignore that for most of his childhood, he was raised alternately by a single white mother and his white grandparents.

They will have to ignore his ties to three continents and his unique global perspective.

They will have to ignore his consensus seeking temperment.

They will have to ignore his mostly white Harvard Law School classmates who elected him as editor, then president of the law review.

They will have to ignore the fact that he has more endorsements from his senate colleagues, who are all white, than Senator Clinton who has 4 years more experience in the chamber.

They will have to ignore his unwavering message of hope since the start of the campaign and instead focus on the condemned words of a preacher from another generation.

Finally, they will have to ignore their own children, most of whom have outgrown the old stereotypes of race and gender and see in Obama a leader for a new generation whose time has come.

A few Americans may be that ignorant, but never America as a whole. We will elect a leader in 2008 based on issues and values, not on ignorance and fear.

Mr. Stein, please recalibrate your thoughts on this matter, either now by a little clear-headed thought, or in November when the results come in.

Posted by: optimyst | March 27, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Making spaghetti today, eh Proud? Throwing noodles to the wall, to see what sticks? Your cut-and-paste job bespeaks a lack of passion, quite honestly, especially since some of those Obama hit jobs are quite stale.

Quite frankly, I would like to see some of that zest you displayed when the Spitzer thing was hot. Nothing like the discussion of a wide stance to bring out the animal in GOP.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

THE SURGE IS WORKING! THE SURGE IS WORKING!

Defiant Shiites flexed their muscle today by sending tens of thousands of supporters into the streets of Baghdad, raining shells into the Green Zone and holding the Iraqi army at bay in the key oil city of Basra.

Amid all the turmoil, a bomb blasted a crucial oil pipeline in Basra, triggering a massive fire and threatening the country's ability to export oil.

It was the second oil pipeline attacked in southern Iraq this week. Basra's oil accounts for 80 percent of Iraq's production.

The pipeline blast sent the world's price of oil to $107 a barrel."

Maybe John McCain will STFU now about how great everything is going over there and start living in reality. But I doubt it.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Fool did you see the poll on Hillary supporters voting for Obama in the GE. Very high negatives in many polls. Don't strain yourself trying to read polls.

That is were things hurt. Also lost to Mac with indies.

Obama has a core support of 40 percent (WP cultist ect). He lost some and got it back. That does not mean he got through preacher man.

Typical

Posted by: mul | March 27, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

obama's speech in NYC today:

http://thepage.time.com/full-remarks-of-obamas-economic-speech-in-new-york-city/

too bad about you, proud. you used to make some halfway intelligent remarks. now you're just another paranoid conspiracy freak i have to scroll past. Is hate radio a virus that destroys the brain? apparently so...

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

svreader-I misbelieve you because, like your heroes Bill and Hillary, you are a compulsive misspeaker also.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

davidmwe asks
"Why not also over-sample then white, professional females?"

That might not be as interesting a demographic to whomever paid for the poll. Which brings up the real point: it gets cost-prohibitive to get all the data someone might want, which is why they try to sample the miniumum number of people that will provide a reasonably accurate result.

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Obama is the only candidate with a grip on financial realilty:

"[W]e have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis. A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business has changed. But by the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework."


God rest the soul of Paul Wellstone. How prophetic he was:

"S. 900 [repeal of Glass-Steagel] would make it easier for banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to merge into gigantic new conglomerates that would dominate the U.S. financial industry and the U.S. economy.

Mr. President, this is the wrong kind of modernization at the wrong time. Modernization of the existing confusing patchwork of laws, regulations, and regulatory authorities would be a good thing, but that's not what this legislation is about. S. 900 is really about accelerating the trend towards massive consolidation of the financial sector.

This is the wrong kind of modernization because it fails to put in place adequate regulatory safeguards for these new financial giants the failure of which could jeopardize the entire economy. It's the wrong kind of modernization because taxpayers could be stuck with the bill if these conglomerates become ``too big to fail.''

And of course, that is precisely what happened.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

novamatt: spot on.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

"My guess is that you're the guy who's using my handle on other sites.

Like Obama, you'll go to any lengths to win, won't you????"

Wow, busted. That's the sort of thing that will clinch the nom for Obama.

You know what I'm loving? I'm the one who threw you off your game, and kept you away from the Ctrl-V for at least one post.

Tell me, what hurts your traction the most -- that Obama is going to win the nom and prez, or that Fix readers busted you? How much longer can you go on? I see that you've stopped wasting your time with that idiotic Rezko-people-died-in-the-snow-and-the-book-is-coming-out-soon story. Are you ready to concede, schizo?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Speculation about what will happen in November is a little premature. Obama will be a different candidate once he has the nomination completely sewn up, and he will almost certainly go back to the themes that attracted independents and independent-minded Republicans before. Uncommitted Dems will swing around as they always do. Hillary supporters will stifle their sniffles, especially if she delivers a stirring endorsement, and become one with the borg. Not all of them, but most of them.

And McCain is vulnerable in ways that were not exploited in the Republican Party simply because of who Republicans are and how they operate. We're seeing some of that already in the withering scorn McCain is getting from the late-night teevee crowd. By November, McCain, in the minds of many voters, will be Abe Simpson, except older and angrier and less effectual. He'll also own the war and the recession and everything else that's happened in the last seven years. And every stumble and gaffe will amplify that.

Posted by: novamatt | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

jnoel --

If Obama gets nominated, nobody except a few fanatics will vote for him in the general election.

COCAINE, REZKO, WRIGHT, etc.

Obama's spent his whole career running, not doing real work.

He's the "Wizard of Oz"

People won't like what they see once they see the real Barry Obama.

Republicans will point out what Democrats haven't been willing to.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 11:18 AM

So you are saying Hillary is holding back? She isn't willing to do what it takes to get elected? But the republicans are? Somewhere there is a closet filled with nothing but Obama's skeletons in it?
All the "negatives" you listed regarding Obama have already come to light, why hasn't it stopped Obama thus far?
And you don't believe that any of Hillary's negatives (Sniper Fire in Bosnia, 35 years of experience by osmosis) or John McCain's negatives (for continuing the war, age) will hold her/him back from winning the general?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Chelsea has every right to be offended when someone asks an offensive, obnoxious question.

---------------

The question was neither obnoxious nor offensive. And even if it were, so what? Doesn't that fall within the parameters her father spoke about yesterday?

How does that excuse her from talking to reporters?

Not buying it. It sets up a double standard. If she wants to campaign, then face up to the press.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Talk about a double standar...why doesn't the media delve into Senator Obama's "misstatements"?

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. The Obama campaign is personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months.

Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

To say that Wright has not had a negative impact on Obama is laughable. It simply doesn't match with conversations that we all have had with family and co-workers.

----------------

What's laughable is your equating your friends and family with the rest of the country.

My neighbors, white, black, Asian, straight, gay, lesbian, lower middle class, late 20s through 70s, with and without children, Christian, Jewish, and non-denominational, Dems, Indies and a few Repubs, all see the Wright issue as a non-issue.

Furious about gas prices, milk prices, Iraq war, crap economy, poltical bullying, impotent DC, social security, healthcare, China's rise, falling dollar, future for the kids, environment, etc etc.

Wright is a non-issue.

But I wouldn't presume this is true for EVERYONE. Just the folks I know in Richmond VA, a rather conservative and segregated southern city.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Thanks bsimon and optimyst-
Basically, the poll platform should be fair. Why not also over-sample then white, professional females?

Posted by: davidmwe | March 27, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Chelsea has every right to be offended when someone asks an offensive, obnoxious question. And as for the Secret Service keeping people away -- well, I'm sure she gets death threats from insane republicans.

Btw, I'm convinced SVReader is one of the above referenced insane republicans.

As far as Obama -- the same people who wouldn't have voted for him before the Wright incident won't vote for him after.

The only poll that would matter would be asking self-identified Obama supporters if they were changing their vote because of it.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

jnoel --

If Obama gets nominated, nobody except a few fanatics will vote for him in the general election.

COCAINE, REZKO, WRIGHT, etc.

Obama's spent his whole career running, not doing real work.

He's the "Wizard of Oz"

People won't like what they see once they see the real Barry Obama.

Republicans will point out what Democrats haven't been willing to.


Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

BTW, I don't understand the brouhaha about Chelsea.

Dad says that no one should get involved in politics unless they expect to get roughed up. It's a contact sport, he says.

But the Secret Service keeps the press away from Chelsea and she refuses to talk to them and gets all offended when asked a question at a political Q&A where she is campaigning for her mother.

Why the royal treatment? Why the hypocrisy? If she wants to be left alone and handled with kid gloves, why not just stay home?

Just evidence to me of the Clinton double standard and sense of entitlement.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

bondjedi --

My guess is that you're the guy who's using my handle on other sites.

Like Obama, you'll go to any lengths to win, won't you????


Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

You know what I THINK? I think the American peopleare sick of all these distractions from the core issues of this election year - Neither Reverend Wright nor HIllary is Bosnia is going to do anything about the teetering economy or with the continuing morass in Iraq. All this posturing is leading Americans to fear, I believe, that things will really be in crapper by November because of all this negative personal campaigning. Maybe the name in politics is to show who has the bigger feet of clay or the darkest soul or who is the most malevolent.
Please stop telling me whats wrong with the other person, tell me what you plan to do about what is wrong with the country and what you plan to do about it. And please, no fear mongering - I read this morning that Hillary is comparing our economy to that in Japan in 1990 when their huge stock and real estate bubble collapsed (leading to 18 years of terrible economic performance). With Iraq continuing to look like toast I think American might think of leaning over and ............ no matter who is elected

Posted by: nclwtk | March 27, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

svreader, so you're saying "mainstream" democrats are going to vote for a republican?
So the democratic party imposes a penalty against states not complying with their rules and "mainstream" democrats are upset? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the party made up of "mainstream" democrats and not controlled by radicals? Or are all the conservative pundits not so crazy after all?
I understand the primary season has been very tenuous between Obama and Clinton supporters but do you really think 6 months from now the hatred will still be raging?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

I see the schizophrenic svreader is back, this time with an anti-Obama message. So I guess odd-numbered days it's the Post to slur Senator Obama, and even-numbered days you're in Columbus, slandering Senator Clinton.

Spare us the denials -- someone has the same name, I'm pro-Israel, someone hijacked my Washington Post account, etc. We've read them all before. Just know that you're wasting your time here, and your bs propaganda has zero traction. Keep hitting Ctrl V: it's a free country.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 27, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

To say that Wright has not had a negative impact on Obama is laughable. It simply doesn't match with conversations that we all have had with family and co-workers.

I don't have a PHD in math, but common sense would tell you that Obama listening quietly to Wright's sermons for 20 years and talking about "typical white people" have not been an asset in his quest for the White House.

While the poll may show that his supporters have not switched to Clinton, it doesn't show any evidence that her supporters are rallying around him either. Remember it is late in the process and he is the likely nominee.

Posted by: lpeter59 | March 27, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Everyone loves a poll when it reflects their agenda, and dismisses it when it does not.

Doesn't really matter. Still have to wait till the votes come in. Then we'll know for sure.

Until the Superdelegates declare, Hillary won't step aside, nor should she.

I suspect they will start declaring en masse if Barack wins NC (or after PA if Obama stays within 5 points).

But every day is a year. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Wright hasn't immediately derailed Obama, but this is the gift that keeps on giving. This issue is not going away, and the more people hear it, the worse it will be for Obama. Just because there is little change a week later does not mean that this is not going to cost him in the general election.

Posted by: KenStein | March 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Davidmwe writes "I am not a statistician, but why would a nationwide poll, want to effectively "load" the survey, in either direction?"

I suggest there are several possibilities:
1) Curiosity -- in a speech about race, I can see wanting to ask African Americans more detailed questions for their reactions.
2) To make the poll more interesting. If you want to sell your poll in the marketplace you need to ask the questions your users will find more interesting. So they tend to look for controversies for their subjects. If the controversies involve Obama, it will make the poll seem to be tilted in favor of Clinton and vice versa.

It appears we are both Obama supporters, David. That doesn't mean I don't find the nature of your posts overhyped considering you provide little else but a link. Your "marketplace" might need a breather. I'd rather see a weekly or topical post with some of your own interpretation of the movement in the candidate stats as well as what it might mean in the future. Show the reader that you have studied these charts and found the subtle data they might not pick up in a cursory glance. Be the analyst. Be specific, not general as you are now. Give us some insights from the numbers. Make it interesting to read.

Posted by: optimyst | March 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Obama supporters have burned their bridges with mainstream democrats.

If Obama gets the nomination, especially without the votes of Florida and Michigan being properly counted, mainstream Democrats will feel cheated and will vote for McCain out of protest.

The only viable solution may be for Democrats to nominate Al Gore, who is stronger and more highly respected than any other candidate and has a moral right to the Presidency since he won the popular vote in 2000.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

davidmwe writes
"I am not a statistician, but why would a nationwide poll, want to effectively "load" the survey, in either direction?"

I am not a statistician either. I am a database designer/builder for a marketing research company that collects survey data, which is remarkably similar to polling data.

Statistically speaking the sample size drives the accuracy of the resulting data. So if you collect 1000 surveys you have a statistic probability of 'x' of accurately reflecting the whole population. However, when you start segmenting that 1000 people and trying to identify subgroups, you lose statistical accuracy, because you're now trying to use, say, 300 surveys - not 1000. If that segment is important, you bump up the sample to 1000 again to get a better statistical probability of accurately representing the group's views. When aggregating that data with the whole survey (i.e. all segments), you have to cut it back to a proportionally representative size. Make sense?

Posted by: bsimon | March 27, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I agree with hermanSF that NBC is pro Obama and the recent poll can be biased.
My view is that NBC is part of corporate America, they probably dislike both Dem. candidates for being too liberal. In order to have the Republican win the general election, they would like Obama to be nominated by hitting Sen. Clinton harder, who is believed to be the stronger candidate to win the key battle states in November.

Posted by: ypcchiu | March 27, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I don't know about this. I just saw a snippet of Hillary in a blue dress and I had a flashback-BLUE DRESS- and all I could imagine was the sight of Bill with Monica and Monica was part of the way out of the little blue dress ---and then Bill apllied the stain to the blue dress.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 27, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

REPUBLICANS WILL USE WRIGHT TO CRUSH OBAMA.
-----------------

If they want to lose. It will alienate the Indies and the new Obamaicans. Once the Dem party and Hillary get behind Barack, nothing the Repubs do will matter.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

GLOAT NOW. CRY LATER.

REPUBLICANS WILL USE WRIGHT TO CRUSH OBAMA.

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Rendell is refreshingly blunt and straightforward. He said that, in the November election, Clinton would easily carry Pennsylvania, but that Obama would be very vulnerable.

--------------------

Rendell threw Barack under the bus ...another shill for Hillary, once again betraying the Dem party by attacking Obama, HIS party's potential candidate and giving fodder to the Repubs.

His argument that Hillary would carry PA but not Obama in the general was ridiculous.

Another friend of the Clintons who puts their agenda above the party's.

The interview with Thomas Keller much more palatable.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

To get some relief from the BE AFRAID!!! doom and gloom of typical Bush-Cheney and Clinton-Clinton politics, try this link if you haven't seen it already. It's about the new Bush coins:

http://blip.tv/file/520347

Posted by: radicalpatriot | March 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

"I was right about USC def. TAMU, although we almost had 'em."

It was UCLA, genius. I would say stick to politics, but you don't know anything about that, either.

Posted by: TheTruth | March 27, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

When people think about the Wright controversy they will realize that Obama is NOT Rev. Wright.

Even John McCain says that Obama does not hold Rev. Wright's views. Of course now that McCain has said it, its going to be hard to use that against Obama in his campaign.

Hillary will continue to use it to manipulate her base though and deflect from her lies. Ironic isn't it? Or is it? She was the president of the College Republicans.

The fact is "Guilt By Association is Anti-American" and decent people realize that an Anti-American US Senator and a anti-white half white candidate are just more Clinton fabrications.

Posted by: n2itiveus | March 27, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Hi optimyst, I never said the web stats are scientific in their overview- but they do tell a story and an important one at that, at least as far as I am concerned...
Politics is anything but scientific.

You further wrote:
"One can oversample to obtain results for a specific question, then use a demographic adjustment to return the segment to its correct weighting for the other questions in the poll."

It was more than just "a" single question, it was with regards to all the questions surrounding Barack's speech on race done by that poll.
I am not a statistician, but why would a nationwide poll, want to effectively "load" the survey, in either direction? (I can understand if the questions where specifically about things that only had to do with African-Americans, but that does not appear to be the case here- unless you or someone else can explain it to me how this does not effect the results... that are being so widely publicized.)

Posted by: davidmwe | March 27, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Polls are all fine well and good but we use an electoral college system NOT a popular vote to decide the President. What is the electoral breakdown of the candidates versus McCain. That should tell you a lot more than just a popular feeling. Clinton may have 44% but if that 44% gets 51% of the electoral votes then that is as important as McCain's 46% popularity as a perceived lead. (No I am not voting for Billary but let's be realistic and fair on what the data really means.)

Posted by: dsullivan | March 27, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

This time the tide is turning - and it is turning to Obama......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/27/this-time-the-tide-is-turning/

Posted by: glclark4750 | March 27, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

'Drindl I do not believe Obama is anti-patriotic, just telling you how this will play in the fall with Joe sixpack in the rural areas '

but jeeze, bhoomes... don't you think it's ridiculous to judge whether someone is patriotic by whether they wear a plastic Chinese pin? i mean, isn't it the height of absurdity?

and if you have ever been in a fundamentalist Baptist church, black or white, as i have, you will know that the preachers are often pretty 'out there'. when i was a kid in the fifties, our old preacher used to shriek out hellfire and damnation on the Jews -- because he said they killed Jesus.

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

You people in the media kill me! You over parse everything to the point that you don't seem to know how to draw simple conclusions from the data you have.

Look. You say about a third (32%) think Obama has sufficiently dealt with the Wright controversy. You say a little less than a third (26%) still thinks we need more explanation. And still another third doesn't seem to care at all.

The simple conclusion is that two-thirds of those sampled think the Wright issue is over and done with. So why don't you in the media just say that? You all seem to be struggling not to offend that 26% who want to keep this issue alive for either (1) partisan reasons, or (2) profits and ratings or (3) both. Talk aradio wants to keep the issue alive for both reasons. The mainstream media want to kleep it alive for profit and ratings.

So who are the people who don't have an opinion on this Chris? Probably people like me who believe you people in the mdia are not doing what a professional journalist ought to do, which is keep the electorate informed on the real campaign issues rather than ginning up controversy on trivia and personalities.

Posted by: jaxas | March 27, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Hey Hillary Supporters:

G et over yourselves.
O bama has already won this!

A ll you want to do now is spoil the race.
W hy not focus on her bogus claims.
A t this point you must want McCain to win
Y ou may, but if you do you're not a dem.
!

You are Clintocrats -- go start a new party.

See you in the fall, or not! :)

Posted by: dab23 | March 27, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Funny -- if you like Nazis, I guess, like Sean Hannity does..

'Anyway, a few days ago, Hannity brought Malik Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party on the show. Shabazz and his organization had previously chosen to endorse Barack Obama, who subsequently rejected the endorsement. It was up to Hannity to make some hay out of this, but the tables got turned very quickly:

Hannity added, "What I don't think you're understanding here, Malik, is that when you hear the minister of him for 20 years, when you hear the associations with Louis Farrakhan, one of the biggest racists and anti-Semites in the country, what you're not understanding is, America hears extremism at its worst."

Shabazz responded, "Let me ask you this. Are you to be judged by your promotion and association with Hal Turner?"

Hannity waved his arm around. "I don't know anybody named - this is nonsense. I don't..." Then Hannity changed his tune. "Sir, sir... That was a man that was banned from my radio show ten years ago, that ran a Senate campaign in New Jersey."

Then, as Shabazz refused to stop talking or back down, Hannity, in a tacit admission, said, "I'm not running for president."

"A neo Nazi, you backed his career," Shabazz said.

and he is:

'Harold "Hal" Turner is an American white nationalist, white supremacist, and former Internet radio talk show host from North Bergen, New Jersey. His weekly program, The Hal Turner Show, was webcast from his home until February 2008.
Turner, who called himself "Hal from North Bergen", spent much of 1990s working in political campaigns, and also became notable as a frequent caller to Bob Grant and Sean Hannity's WABC-AM talk shows. Turner would go on to become a talk show host himself, but ended this career after claiming he couldn't work with his Jewish boss.

Turner has often made news for his views and stances on political issues. He promotes anti-Semitism (including rounding up and killing Jews); and opposes the existence of the state of Israel.[1] He also writes and promotes Holocaust denial
materials.'

and Turner says:

"I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me and then went on to say that I ran some senate campaign in New Jersey. In fact, Sean Hannity does know me and we were quite friendly.

When Hannity took over Bob Grant's spot on 77 WABC in New York City, I was a well-known, regular and welcome caller to his show. Through those calls, Sean and I got to know each other and at some point, Sean gave me the secret "Guest call-in number" at WABC so that my calls could always get on the air."

But we all know the radical right leans fascist, don't we?

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Davidmwe writes, "What concerns me about this NBC poll is the following by-line:
"NBC said its pollsters oversampled African-Americans to get a more reliable cross tabulation on questions regarding Obama's speech on race."

It's not bad enough I have to wade past these daily non-scientific attempts of the author to glean some correlation between web usage and voting patterns, which appear to be more in the nature of self-promotion than enlightenment, but then he feels the need to pontificate on the validity of polls which are at least based on mathematically derived principles and professional judgment.

One can oversample to obtain results for a specific question, then use a demographic adjustment to return the segment to its correct weighting for the other questions in the poll.

Posted by: optimyst | March 27, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

With all of the hoopla involving Barack Obama and his pastor, I think that we are forgetting some of the most basic and profound principles of the constitution, " The Freedom of Speech" and most importantly, "The Separation of Church and State"!
Separation of church and state is the political and legal idea that government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs.
In the United States, separation of church and state is often identified with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The phrase "building a wall of separation between church and state" was written by the U.S. President Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

Thomas Jefferson says: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship...

WOW!... we owe account to NONE OTHER for our faith or our worship!..... WOW!.....that means that we can worship wherever or with whomever we choose!.....according Thomas Jefferson...

We can worship God, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, or Atheism, and it should not interfere or be an issue regarding our political experience and the potential to lead this country....

So why is the media crucifying Barack for being in his church for 20 years and not leaving?....
It's none of their business what Obama does on Sunday's in the church! It is a personal choice (according to the Constitution) that we all have a right to choose to worship or not to worship, at anyplace, with any congregation.....so let's move on!...

Chelsea Clinton was asked by a student yesterday at Butler University about the Monica Lewinsky affair and her family...she promptly answered the student that "it was none of her business!"....good for Chelsea!...she is right...it is personal!...let's move on!

And guess what, Barack's worship is personal as well, so why is Hillary Clinton, and the media condemning his personal choice & place of worship....almost everyday of the week....it is really old news now...let's move on!

SHAME! on Hillary for bringing it up...she should have made the same statement as her daughter... "basically it is none of my business... mr. reporter, this subject is between Mr. Obama, his God and his personal choice"...so why don't we move on!

James Madison says: "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in NO WISE DIMINISH, ENLARGE, OR AFFECT THEIR CIVIL CAPACITIES"....do you finally get it Hillary, and the media?...let's move on!

Oh!...by the way....the actual speech that Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave on Sept. 16, 2001 was based on quotes from former Ambassador Edward Peck (Terrorism Advisor to the Reagan Administration) on FOX News...it was MR. PECK who said "that America's chickens had come home to roost!"...and "that America was basically responsible for the damage that was done on 911 because of what we did to others in the world"....in other words...violence begets violence....hate begets hate....what goes around, comes around according to MR. PECK, NOT Rev. Wright!....can we move on please!

We need to stop this crucifiction of Barack Obama and his pastor, based loosely on 30 second soundbytes out of 36 years of his pastorial ministry!.......now Can We Move On........ Please?


Posted by: docdwb | March 27, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

My advice to the dems who just want to win in the fall, is to give it to Al Gore. at this point, I just don't see either Obama or Clinton beating John McCain.

Posted by: vbhoomes | March 27, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Hello! The 527s are already having a field day with these viral videos. Who do you think is posting these things to YouTube? The attack on Barack has already begun by the right. Do you find it odd that you wake up each morning and the Today Show and all the other talking head shows have "breaking news" from overnight? Hmmmn, while the rest of us slept some intrepid reporter was working into the wee hours combing through old Wright sermons, writings etc. It's all a calculated plan to keep the pot stirred. And where does it originate? Who has the most to gain from an Obama fall? HRC and the republicans. Use your heads.

Posted by: gtaylor301 | March 27, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Curious: Why didn't today's print edition have this story? ((Maybe it was buried in Dan's piece that was too slow going for a full read.) Seems like the Post is fronting for Hillary and McCain these days.

Posted by: chrismad | March 27, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Curious: Why didn't today's print edition have this story? ((Maybe it was buried in Dan's piece that was too slow going for a full read.) Seems like the Post is fronting for Hillary and McCain these days.

Posted by: chrismad | March 27, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Drindl I do not believe Obama is anti-patriotic, just telling you how this will play in the fall with Joe sixpack in the rural areas who are now leaning towards HRC. I still plan on voting for Obama in the fall but I would had felt better if he would had shown some outrage over his preacher's disgusting hatefilled remarks.

Posted by: vbhoomes | March 27, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"Over a quarter of Americans don't think Senator Obama has adequately addressed the Wright issue." (paraphrased)

They said nothing about the 32% or the 3 in 10 who didn't know or care."

that's because the MSM feels its job is to kneecap democrats... they've been doing it for 30 years now -- why change?

Well, it's true, Mark. How ironic is that, that the 'flag pin' that republicans think of as such an important patriotic gesture, is made in a country that we may well be at war with in the not distant future? What kind of an idiot values an empty symbol of how far we've fallen as a world power? I really cannot comprehend the shallowness and superficiality of this--it's staggering... it's really like pavlov's dogs:

'Barack refusing to wear an american flag on his lapel and then straight to his refusing to plave his hand over his heart. It will be a strong and convincing message that these dems hate their country.'

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

These polls are bogus. NBC is so pro Obama it is pathetic. If the one comment made on this site is true, I wouldn't be surprised if NBC polled more African Americans so they could fudge their numbers. An example, If I have two pairs of socks and I sell one of those pairs, I've sold 50% of my socks! Polls can be taken any number of ways to get the results you want to present to the audience. I have stopped watching Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman for this exact reason. Their reporting is so biased it appears they are the personal cheerleading squad for his campaign. Hillary Clinton will win this nomination as more unfavorable facts come out about Obama, that is if the press will do its job correctly and just reports the facts! KEEP YOUR OPINIONS OUT OF YOUR REPORTS!

Posted by: jeiken | March 27, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Or maybe Hillary's low positive polling is due to the fact that people are sick and tired of her. Complete Clinton Exhaustion.

She's becoming more and more like George Bush every day: completely isolated and surrounded with "advisers" who separate her from reality, prone to exaggeration, no regard for the rules, etc...

I think she ought to listen to a little Roy Orbison: it's over, it's over, it's over...

Posted by: hermanSF | March 27, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

My last post: If only BHO had been clever as drindl! I am not mocking your post, I am advising BHO.

"I will not wear lapel pins made in China."

A great sell to the Machinist Union, or the petrochemical workers he needs to thwart HRC.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

I saw some egregious reporting last night. On NBC4 (WRC-TV) last night on the 11pm news, they flashed the new poll numbers for a brief second while the reporter (Jim Vance) said, "Over a quarter of Americans don't think Senator Obama has adequately addressed the Wright issue." (paraphrased)

They said nothing about the 32% or the 3 in 10 who didn't know or care.

Posted by: schencks84 | March 27, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/27/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq.php

'BAGHDAD: Tens of thousands of Shiites took the streets to protest'

look at the photo -- tens of thousands of Iraqis protesting their government--violence escalates. christ. yeah, someone tell me how well it's going over there.

personally, i care more about this than a plastic flag lapel pin. but then, I'm not as stupid as most republicans seem to be. i don't get all misty over a plastic flag pin MADE IN CHINA. they're all MADE IN CHINA -- did you know that? just like all our AMERICAN FLAGS these days -- made in China. I care about THAT.

christ, you R folks are really easily fooled, you know?

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Mike - glued to the TV for the important stuff, I was rooting for the Aggies against UCLA and when Sloan went up for that shot, Shipp grabbed his wrist. Clear from the newswire photos, the next day. No call. Game UCLA. But the disappearance of Jordan in the second half, the kid who could not be coached, put A&M in jeopardy to begin with.
--------------------
Then Barnes played Augustin and Abrams for 40 min. gain, and they went flat in the last four minutes again. I hope he learns how to sub before the Stanford game tomorrow night.
----------------------
The 30% who did not know anything about politics? March Madness prevails.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 27, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

This is what I believe in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9ubMQX7WE

The Wright controversy is intended to keep us distracted.

Obama 08

Posted by: lexi1 | March 27, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

"Maybe he can grow some facial hair and his voice will change."

Yeah Mike, and maybe Hillary could use this as her new spin line... "I have more facial hair and my voice is deeper."

AND maybe if he waited another 25 years he could be as old as McCain is right now...

Or perhaps he should just do it. Right now. At this moment. And actually help move this country forward.

Please reply with some equally insightful drivel...

Posted by: Boutan | March 27, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

He may have past the test with dems but the good reverends anti-america remarks will probably cost Obama the general election. I can visualize a 527 group running a montage of Reverend Wrights hate america speech and then go to Michelle Obama's "for the 1st time I am proud of my country" and then to Barack refusing to wear an american flag on his lapel and then straight to his refusing to plave his hand over his heart. It will be a strong and convincing message that these dems hate their country.

Posted by: vbhoomes | March 27, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

This is like, duh, stunningly obvious --but still worth telling [NYT story] about the way young people are choosing and communicating their own 'news' and how that shifts political power away from the traditional media [hallelujah]

'Senator Barack Obama's videotaped response to President Bush's final State of the Union address -- almost five minutes of Mr. Obama's talking directly to the camera -- elicited little attention from newspaper and television reporters in January.

But on the medium it was made for, the Internet, the video caught fire. Quickly after it was posted on YouTube, it appeared on the video-sharing site's most popular list and Google's most blogged list. It has been viewed more than 1.3 million times, been linked by more than 500 blogs and distributed widely on social networking sites like Facebook.

It is not news that young politically minded viewers are turning to alternative sources like YouTube, Facebook and late-night comedy shows like "The Daily Show." But that is only the beginning of how they process information.

According to interviews and recent surveys, younger voters tend to be not just consumers of news and current events but conduits as well -- sending out e-mailed links and videos to friends and their social networks. And in turn, they rely on friends and online connections for news to come to them. In essence, they are replacing the professional filter -- reading The Washington Post, clicking on CNN.com -- with a social one.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/us/politics/27voters.html?ref=todayspaper

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm pleasantly surprised that the rantings of Jeremiah Wright have not derailed Obama's candidacy. I'm an Obama supporter and have chosen to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I cannot understand how he could have listened to the ravings of that madman for 20+ years. Good grief.

One interesting thing about the NBC poll is that Hillary's negativity ratings are at an all-time high. This goes against her argument that she is more electable than Obama.

Posted by: Seneca7 | March 27, 2008 8:47 AM | Report abuse

Mark - did you see your Longhorns the other night?

I was right about USC def. TAMU, although we almost had 'em.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

The Fix asks, "Who are these people?"...the ones who had not seen Obama's race speech or had no opinion. Well, I would bet many voters do not have the time or desire to watch it on TV or the Internet. Many of them might not have a computer at all, and were working when Obama was on live television in the middle of a workday.

That's a real problem for Obama, as Gov. Rendell alluded to last night on the Charlie Rose show. Rendell is refreshingly blunt and straightforward. He said that, in the November election, Clinton would easily carry Pennsylvania, but that Obama would be very vulnerable.

My take is that the Wright stuff will haunt him throughout the general election campaign. He'll need to cobble together a coalition that includes conservative working-class Democrats, but he has not yet won those folks over, which partly explains Hillary's substantial lead in Pennsylvania.

Posted by: harlemboy | March 27, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

oops, don't know why that last graf copied twice. and in other news -- Iraq continues to disintegrate. 'Surge' troops going home, no combat ready troops to replace them, sunnis not getting paid by US government and ready to return to the insurgency, various Shia splinter groups, members of government, and private armies warring among themselves...

'The WSJ reminds readers that the recent violence isn't the only pressing concern for U.S. officials and points out that there's a real risk many Sunni fighters who have joined local security forces will go back to acting as insurgents. Add to that the possibility that Sadr will officially call off his cease-fire and that most of the additional U.S. "surge" troops are getting ready to get back home, and it all adds up to an easily combustible situation. "All three of the factors holding down the violence are unwinding at the same time, which is a pretty big deal," a U.S. professor tells the WSJ.'

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps Americans are tired of being manipulated by the same old racist tripe. Maybe we are ready to think in terms of our actual self-interest again. We could start by booting out republicans in positions of power who gave $200 billion in arms contracts to a 22-year-old 'masseur.'

"The NYT's lead story, which clocks in at more than 4,000 words and involves reporting by seven reporters in as many countries, has several key pieces of damning information, and each could have made up a story by itself, but added together they paint a shocking picture of the underworld of the arms trade, not to mention the inefficiencies in the federal procurement process. Here's a highlight: Some of the ammunition provided by AEY is more than 40 years old; much of it came from former Communist countries and involves obsolete stockpiles that the State Department has paid to destroy; to maximize profits, the materiel was often sent in inappropriate packages that quickly disintegrated; AEY appears to have done business with people whom the federal government suspects of illegal arms trafficking; and millions of pieces of ammunitions were manufactured in China, which could mean the company broke U.S. law. Not enough for you? To top it all off, a conversation between the company's president and an Albanian businessman, which was secretly recorded, suggest the 22-year-old executive was well-aware that his purchases involved lots of kickbacks and corruption.he NYT's lead story, which clocks in at more than 4,000 words and involves reporting by seven reporters in as many countries, has several key pieces of damning information, and each could have made up a story by itself, but added together they paint a shocking picture of the underworld of the arms trade, not to mention the inefficiencies in the federal procurement process. Here's a highlight: Some of the ammunition provided by AEY is more than 40 years old; much of it came from former Communist countries and involves obsolete stockpiles that the State Department has paid to destroy; to maximize profits, the materiel was often sent in inappropriate packages that quickly disintegrated; AEY appears to have done business with people whom the federal government suspects of illegal arms trafficking; and millions of pieces of ammunitions were manufactured in China, which could mean the company broke U.S. law. Not enough for you? To top it all off, a conversation between the company's president and an Albanian businessman, which was secretly recorded, suggest the 22-year-old executive was well-aware that his purchases involved lots of kickbacks and corruption."

he NYT's lead story, which clocks in at more than 4,000 words and involves reporting by seven reporters in as many countries, has several key pieces of damning information, and each could have made up a story by itself, but added together they paint a shocking picture of the underworld of the arms trade, not to mention the inefficiencies in the federal procurement process. Here's a highlight: Some of the ammunition provided by AEY is more than 40 years old; much of it came from former Communist countries and involves obsolete stockpiles that the State Department has paid to destroy; to maximize profits, the materiel was often sent in inappropriate packages that quickly disintegrated; AEY appears to have done business with people whom the federal government suspects of illegal arms trafficking; and millions of pieces of ammunitions were manufactured in China, which could mean the company broke U.S. law. Not enough for you? To top it all off, a conversation between the company's president and an Albanian businessman, which was secretly recorded, suggest the 22-year-old executive was well-aware that his purchases involved lots of kickbacks and corruption."

Posted by: drindl | March 27, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

"Taken collectively, what the numbers in the NBC/WSJ poll suggest is that Rev. Wright did not derail Obama's candidacy"

That may not be the case forever.

Should the dishonest junior Senator get the nomination, surely even the reluctancy of John McCain to expose him won't stop the "roughly three in ten... (who are these people)" from hearing the hateful remarks of his 20-year-spiritual-leader.

I think Clinton has a beter than 50% chance of stealing this thing anyway. Maybe 4-8 years would be good for Mr. Obama. (Maybe he can grow some facial hair and his voice will change.)

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Yes, he not only appears to have passed, he is surging, as these figures show here;

Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor-

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

What concerns me about this NBC poll is the following by-line:
"NBC said its pollsters oversampled African-Americans to get a more reliable cross tabulation on questions regarding Obama's speech on race." SOURCE:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26445755

Posted by: davidmwe | March 27, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

If these polls accurately reflect opinion, then I'm actually more heartened about our fellow US citizens than I have been in a long time.

I live and work for the US govt. in Germany. If people were really able to see through and analyze this, and not equate "Obama=Wright", then it reminds me of a similiar heartening political episode that took place recently here in Germany.

The conservative (CDU) party controlled the state of Hessen (which includes Frankfurt, and Wiesbaden where I live)...the Hessen 'govenor', Koch (CDU obviously), was slipping in the polls. About the same time there was a vicious attack in Frankfurt by two teenage immigrants (the old stereotype of Germany as heterogeneous is VERY out of date...Frankfurt, for instance, is 67% foreign born as of the last census) on an elderly German.

The case got a lot of sensational media attention. Koch, trying to exploit this, proposed a set of draconian laws (deportation immediately after any crime not just for the perpertrator but for the perpetrator's family as well, ect. ect.). I thought, "well, this will work like in the States, where everybody starts Nativistly foaming at the mouth and he'll have scared up a good amount of votes".

Well, it worked exactly the opposite. Polls showed that everyday Germans were incensed by Koch's attempted exploitation in particular. And the conservatives lost their majority (they've controlled Hessen for quite a while, also). Here's hoping that we Americans are similiarly able to fight through the political noise and bias and focus on education, the economy, iraq, ect.

Posted by: harry.fuchs | March 27, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Even you are sounding a little dour about the prospect of this going on endlessly...what happened to the "this is exciting!" narrative? ;)

Posted by: finnpillsbury | March 27, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company