Political Punch

Obama's supporters claim that Rev. Wright's remarks were taken out of context. Given the remarks are several minuts long, not just a few seconds, let them articulate just what is the context making these remarks acceptable discussion and not hate speech?

So now Wright is gone. That should take care of everything.
And Barack never was in the church when his pastor/mentor spewed venomous hatred against America, so everything's o.k. now.
Whew...Barack dodged a bullet there. We're all convinced. No harm done.
Keith Olbermann seemed to be satisfied, and he's very impartial, so let's all start chanting again.
Where's the kool-aid? Cheers.

I'm sure that Obama's tv appearances last night were pretty disappointing for his followers. Other than the Olbermann softball interview (Keith tried desperately to minimalize the situation), Obama seemed submissive to Garrett on Fox and quite frigtened in the rest of the interviews. Reminds me of Bush.

if obama is the dems nominee, he will not win in the general election. just imagine that one clip of the man he's described as his mentor and spiritual advisor, the minister he says brought him to christianity and the church, the former (but only as of last night?!) spiritual advisor to his campaign (is this a campaign position i've just never heard of before or something some people make up because it sounds so gosh darned spiritual?) and this clip of reverent wright saying 'god d*mn america' being played over and over and over and over again, because it will be, for months and months and months, because that's how long the campaign will be during july, august, september, october until november, and how many average voters who might otherwise have taken a chance on obama will be worse than outraged but honestly sick to their stomachs at the thought of it -- they will NOT hold their noses and vote for a man who's spiritual advisor makes these sorts of 'sermons.' it will not happen. obama cannot win the general election this year. maybe 4 or 8 years from now after he's distanced himself further, but not just a couple of months after. and talk about a divisive campaign? hillary is divisive? obama's campaign is now the divisive one.

He may survive if no footage comes out with him at a hateful service. My brother who was and is an Obama supporter doesn't even believe that he never heard any of those comments. That is just not a credible statement. And I want to know is the Rev. out of his life. The thought of the Rev. in the Whitehouse is just too much to take.

SadStateOfAffairs,

I could not disagree more. Senator Obama has gone out of his way to address all issues that have arisen in a timely and transparent way. That is more than I can say for Senators Clinton and McCain (still no tax returns or earmarks released and still running campaigns against lobbyists on the same bus with lobbyists).

NobodysFool,

Credibil'ty gap', n. 1. a lack of confidence by the public in statements made by politicians, corporations, etc. 2. a perceived discrepancy between statements and actual performance or behavior.

Therein lays the problem.......Obama has a credibilty gap.

Senator Obama, like most people, go to church for SPIRITUAL reasons, not POLITICAL ones. Senator Obama agrees with his pastor's SPIRITUAL message, not his POLITICAL ones. Is this really that hard to understand? Do not all President's have this issue of separating their personal faith from the common good of ALL the American people? Why is Senator Obama held to a different standard?

The pink elephant that wanders the room, however, is that because the Obama campaign, rightfully, will not lower itself to the garbage flinging attacks by both the Clinton campaign and the conservative Republicans some Obama supporters may feel they need to fill in the gap with attacks of their own where the official campaign does not choose to do so. It is a temptation many of us have had and we applaud Senator Obama for raising us all out of that mire.

You cannot undo 20 years of damage to Obama as a person by saying that Wright is no longer part of your campaign. It just does'nt work that way.

This is true of Rezko too. You cannot undo the 20 years of making Obama to who he is by distancing yourself from Rezko.

These two men were the most important people in Obama's life. Let's not kid ourselves.

There is something behind all that smooth talking and we all now know it. Obama is damaged goods and democrats will be crazy to keep latching to him because the college kids happen to worship him. The truth is the kids don't know any better.

Sad thing is blacks are also not willing to look objectively at Obama and conclude that he is just playing us.

After viewing some of the Reverend Wright's sermons on the internet, I wonder how anyone could claim to be a "Christian," a follower of Jesus Christ, and attend a church or listen to sermons filled with so much profanity and hate.

How would anyone, such as Barak Obama, claim to be ignorant of the message of the Reverend Wright (whether he heard it in a sermon or not) and claim the man as his spiritual advisor and "an old uncle."

Does Barak Obama really believe that we are stupid enough to believe such gibberish?

Do Senators Clinton or McCain attend church? If so, where? Have all of the sermons of their pastors been reviewed for inflammatory rhetoric? Are presidential candidates required to agree with every word spoken by all of the people who attend their church? If so, when was this requirement established? Why is the story about the controversial pastor that endorsed Senator McCain suddenly a non story? Hasn't Senator Clinton received support from religious leaders with questionable views as well?

Obama wants to lead this country as the President....you've gotta be kidding.

The decissions that he has made in the past....I think I prefer someone else answer that 3:00 am phone call.

Anonymous,

Blame the media. They had this information for months and withheld it. MSNBC is still trying to bury it.

Hard to digest. Extremist views should always be condoned and Obama has done it rightfully, but why did it take so long to denounce his Pastor? What is mind boggling is that Obama just realized today that his Pastor has extremist views after taking all the support he could get from his Pastor. Obama is not a transparent guy after all!! People like me vehemently supported him without knowing his past - hope America forgives me!!

This is not going away I am sure the right wing will have much more and for once I am glad they are finally telling us more about this. Obama will not be good in the GE I can't believe they would even try to get this stuff past people as he is only an old Uncle that sometime said he hates America and the white race and the jews.

For months I dismissed all the rhetoric about Obama's preacher and mentor as political garbage, however now after seeing and hearing this hateful nut recently on MSM I've learned my lesson about so easily dismissing these investigative articles. Hearing Rev. Wright was very concerning. He makes Hitler sound like a choir boy.

If Obama really deplores this hate, why has he stayed with this nut for 20 years? Wright was much more than just his preacher. Obama describes him as his "mentor", advisor, uncle, friend…

I still can't see why Obama would go to this "church" for 20 years and support it financially.. What was all this talk about hope and superior judgement he claimed to offer. I don't think he's electable after this fiasco..

And why did it take so long for the media to report this???

Will

You need to can it. It is one thing to support a candidate, but it is complete stupidity and absurdity to back a candidate who doesnt have Integrity, Hates Americans and is always Flip-flopping on statements/issues.

With you being a war-veteran, like you said earlier, I personally would expect better judgement from you on supporting Obama in this instance. You have no case Will. Obama has no case.

yep, so saddened. Now for the video. That would be interesting to see and hear what was going on there.

Will, I SECOND you on that one!!! :)

I know he difference between denunciate and reject. My point was that I didn't feel that Senator Obama directly questioned the answer. Since semantics is your sticking point...There is a difference between saying you reject the views of a man and saying you reject the explicit endorsement of a man. His initial answer was too mild and Hillary was pointing that out that there should be an explicit rejection of the endorsement, not just Farrakhan's views. Since you asked, what would suit me is if he answered the question that he was asked.

Exactly what point are you trying to make by stating that 'egregious is too subjective'? Of course it is subjective...this is a comment in a blog. Again, I don't think any actions by either candidate has been egregious up to this point. What Eliot Spitzer did was egregious and his resignation from office was indicative of that. The resignations of surrogates so far have paled in comparison.

He can reject and denounce as Hillary can, but because he set the standard of a platform based on a new kind of politics, hope and change and also said that certain rhetoric has no place in his campaign, he should have outright removed Rev. Wright from his campaign, but he chose not to do this initially. He did this in the last few hours. Again, too little, too late. To me, his initial unwillingness to run his campaign by his own standards demonstrates a lack of judgment on this issue.

Being anti-American is not being a racist. My argument in no way implies that Senator Obama is a racist. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

"

not arguing - I just thought her sudden Certainty was strange.

She is rarely so definitive in ANYthing she says or does - which she has been a grave disappointment to me to say the least. For her to be like Nah uh, no ticket. I was like who the hell is she to make that statement when she can't figure out how to get her party to vote in strength most of the time. They still act like a minority more often then not.

So her sudden, strong CERTAIN, I just felt was out of place and odd. Unless she had some tip-off and then she'd be trying to look all smart and smug.
"

I understand.

Yeah, I have my issues with pelosi and the dems in general. I have come to believe there is too much cowardice in the party. As weird as kucinich is, at least he tried to get Bush fired.

Im going to support the Dems to get the presidency as well as more seats in congress. But, if they get political power to that degree where they can make real change and screw it up, I will never vote for a dem again.

not arguing - I just thought her sudden Certainty was strange.

She is rarely so definitive in ANYthing she says or does - which she has been a grave disappointment to me to say the least. For her to be like Nah uh, no ticket. I was like who the hell is she to make that statement when she can't figure out how to get her party to vote in strength most of the time. They still act like a minority more often then not.

So her sudden, strong CERTAIN, I just felt was out of place and odd. Unless she had some tip-off and then she'd be trying to look all smart and smug.

So what --- only for more voters, not really for disagreement.

2009...

more speculation? It was and is evident, the Democratic party is split. If you compare Obama's speeches with Hillary's speeches. They are at odds with each other. Hillary says Obama is not ready to be C.I.C. Obama says Hillary is old politics and that we need a change. What's the speculation for?

Now someting else strikes me as strange here too!

Nancy Pelosi - UCK - was babbling the other day CERTAIN that there would be NO DREAM TICKET. Remember that?

I just wonder how she was so damn CERTAIN. Could she have KNOWN something? For the first time in her Leadership, could she have had some good information and that was her coded way of saying - Nah Nah Nah, won't be happening, cause . . .

?

"The Ferraro thing was totally a "guilt by association" and even after Clinton rejected her statements, it was still viewed as too mild with Olbermann making a claim that in the absence of a stronger rejection, she is basically approving Ferraro's rhetoric. That is what I feel is absurd."

She did respond mildy. It was Ferraro that quit and Hillary initially defended Ferraro. You might have missed Hillarys initial statement on this.

"Honestly, I don't think any of the surrogates or advisors should have to step down for their missteps unless they are completely egregious, which up to this point, there haven't really been any."

"egregious" is too subjective. Wright is ranting like a fool and needs to get out of the picture. Ferraro is an idiot and needs to get out of the picture. Period. Racist statements have no place in this campaign.

"I think the "reject" point was a valid one. Tim Russert specifically asked if he rejects [Farrakhan's] support? His response went on to say that he had been very clear of his denunciation of him [Farrakhan] and his past statements. He didn't directly respond to Russert's question."

I watched the video. And I would have responded the exact same way. He answered the question with a perfectly legitimate answer. Then he was asked the same question again as if to imply that he was mincing his words. Within minutes he used the words reject and denounce which is silly. Now, we have a precedent between the candidates where they will have to reject and denounce every scandal that pops up instead of focusing on the issues. Sorry, kind of irks me because it is fairly stupid.

"In my opinion, there is a difference between denunciating the views of a man and outright rejecting that same man's explicit support for his candidacy."

I really don't want to offend you on this one but do you know what denounce means? Though it is your opinion, the word denounce has a specific meaning. Would it suit you if he said, I boycott, rebuke, decry. Here's that example I keep mentioning of holding someone up to an un-even standard.

"Senator Obama's big problem with the Wright issue is that he has to live and die by his own sword. He is the one who set the rules for his campaign and said certain types of statements have no place in it. If Rev. Wright wasn't a part of the campaign, then fine. However, he was an advisor on one of Senator Obama's committee and rejecting and denouncing his views was not sufficient according to his own rules. Too little, too late in my opinion."

Too little, too late. So Hillary can apologize, reject, denounce, wait for someone to fire themselves but Obama can't. Again, I don't care about his church or any candidates church. But, I am more concerned with how he approaches this. He will receive a huge backlash regarding this. But, just like the Clintons, he should have a chance rectify.

"Beyond that, I am having a hard time believing that being a member of the same church for 20 years and never hearing Rev. Wright's anti-American rhetoric seems implausible."

I agree with you on this, but I for one am waiting to hear proof Obama is a racist. Which is what the argument is attempting to do.

I just read where David Gergen on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight said that if anyone produces a photo or a picture of Obama as a sermon that has these racially charged comments, he is finished and will have to resign.

there is greta wire . com and a poll, asking how this will effect Obama

87% say it could be fatal and think it is extremely serious.

Hey "Will",
A bit of analysis,

Thank you for providing coherent talking points that I can either accept or reject through civil discourse.

"there is a big difference between the Reverend Wright matter and the Ferraro matter."

Awaiting to hear/read the differences.

"Ferraro was a previously vetted VP nominee without a history of public overt racial comments that surprisingly went south during the course of the campaign, and Hillary cut her loose."

A previously vetted VP? I don't understand what this has to do with her comment. I respectfully ask that you elaborate.
You make it seem as if she let her loose as soon as she heard about the controversy. That is not true. And, I may be wrong, but Ferraro left and was asked if she was told to leave, she said no. If you require a link, i'll try to find it...but what i said is more acurate.

"Wright's rascism had to be known to Obama, although Wright had not yet been publicly vetted, and yet Obama chose to install him in the campaign. It was not until there was a public outcry about his rascism that Obama acted."

Again, this is an obvious association with a fool. Why Wright needs to be vetted is beyond me. I don't see why he matters. But if he does, then I get to bring up Clintons associations. Furthermore, the way these issues have been going, public outcry has been the only source of getting these politicians to respond. Yet, Obama is being treated as if he is the only one with questionable ties. Furthermore, some would say Ferraro's comment were racist. Im not to certain if it is, but I can certainly see why someone would think so.

"This shows a failure in judgement."

Certainly, not one to the level of authorizing a war, but certainly bad judgment. He should have known, every part of his life would be scrutinized. Soon his sex life will be under the microscope.

"Obama was not surprised by Wright's rascism, he is only acting to quell the outcry."

Of course, no other politician would do that.

"Hillary was surprised by Ferraro's behavior and similarly acted to quell the outcry."

Subjective. But, even if I let you have this as a talking point, it doesnt answer Hillary's initial defense of Ferraro and subsequent apology.

"There is a substantive difference in the root judgement in each case, with Obama showing inherent judgemental weakness."

I like the argument as a display of weak judgment. It definitely reduces his talking points. He now will have to show how his judgment is clear on governmental matters but not in his social matters. I do know he has said many times how imperfect he is.

Im getting depressed at the thought of this pending McCain presidency.

The Ferraro thing was totally a "guilt by association" and even after Clinton rejected her statements, it was still viewed as too mild with Olbermann making a claim that in the absence of a stronger rejection, she is basically approving Ferraro's rhetoric. That is what I feel is absurd.

Honestly, I don't think any of the surrogates or advisors should have to step down for their missteps unless they are completely egregious, which up to this point, there haven't really been any.

I think the "reject" point was a valid one. Tim Russert specifically asked if he rejects [Farrakhan's] support? His response went on to say that he had been very clear of his denunciation of him [Farrakhan] and his past statements. He didn't directly respond to Russert's question. In my opinion, there is a difference between denunciating the views of a man and outright rejecting that same man's explicit support for his candidacy.

Senator Obama's big problem with the Wright issue is that he has to live and die by his own sword. He is the one who set the rules for his campaign and said certain types of statements have no place in it. If Rev. Wright wasn't a part of the campaign, then fine. However, he was an advisor on one of Senator Obama's committee and rejecting and denouncing his views was not sufficient according to his own rules. Too little, too late in my opinion.

Beyond that, I am having a hard time believing that being a member of the same church for 20 years and never hearing Rev. Wright's anti-American rhetoric seems implausible.

Hey "Will",
A bit of analysis, there is a big difference between the Reverend Wright matter and the Ferraro matter. Ferraro was a previously vetted VP nominee without a history of public overt racial comments that surprisingly went south during the course of the campaign, and Hillary cut her loose. Wright's rascism had to be known to Obama, although Wright had not yet been publicly vetted, and yet Obama chose to install him in the campaign. It was not until there was a public outcry about his rascism that Obama acted. This shows a failure in judgement. Obama was not surprised by Wright's rascism, he is only acting to quell the outcry. Hillary was surprised by Ferraro's behavior and similarly acted to quell the outcry. There is a substantive difference in the root judgement in each case, with Obama showing inherent judgemental weakness.

"I think Senator Obama asking people not to reject his presidential campaign because of "guilt by association" is absurd in the wake of the Ferraro statements this past week."

Why? At no point did Obama or his campaign ask anyone to reject the "Clintons presidential campaign" for a blatantly stupid comment. Are you suggesting they both should be rejected for their surrogates/associates mess-ups?

Considering, Clinton is the one that started this whole reject mumbo-jumbo, why is she placed in better footing?

Don't worry LOM, FOX NEWS hammered him. He was stammering, pausing, stuttering. He could only answer yes on many questions because of the way they were worded. No wiggle room at all. He tried to laugh it off a bit, but that Major Garrett was direct and though not rude, was not having it.

Now to find this Davis Newsmax Trinity Church video with Obama in it - that is the million dollar video, and if it airs, its over.

The scary part is you know there are people in the background searching photos for Obama at the Church. Searching bank records to see what date his checks were donated on - and then finding the sermons he attended. There are many videos there and I am sure someone has rushed out and bought them all and is going frame by frame, through each DVD, looking for Obama in the audience.

He looked pale and sick tonight. I wonder if he knows he was at some of these and knows somewhere there will be pictures or video?

"Only thing I can say Will, is I am fully aware of all Hillary's blemishes. Bill's don't count, he can't run for President. The sad thing is that Obama was supposed to be above the "Old" politics as usual, and we are now finding out he is not. He set the bar higher for himself, not us. So when he falls from grace, it seems like he is falling a lot father. He preaches against the same old, same old, and he is just more of it."

THANK YOU, JAY. I can respect this line of thought! That is why I think he is in big trouble. He is being sucked into the 'OLD' politics, how is he getting himself out of it, is a valid question.

I do disagree with you on Bill though. I have listed the reasons why many times and have never heard coherent reasons refuting otherwise. Basically, Bills blemishes do count. She is more associated with Hillary then Obama is with 'the idiot.' They are married and the law recognizes them as one, a union.
I have been saying, hold them both to the same standards. You seem to be OK with all of the clintons transgressions. They are quite numerouos. But, If Obama is wrong for his association with Wright, then Hillary is guilty for her associations.

I think Senator Obama asking people not to reject his presidential campaign because of "guilt by association" is absurd in the wake of the Ferraro statements this past week.

The Olbermann interview was a joke (not that I should be surprised). Those weren't even softball questions, more like t-ball questions where the coach just goes ahead and hits the ball for you. I really fail to see the difference between the Clinton/Ferraro incident compared to the Obama/Wright incident other than the latter is much WORSE. Olbermann is a coward in his skewed "reporting." Where are his "special comments" for this?

I agree that you don't cover all of the major news networks unless you have to backtrack for something BAD. It'll be interesting to see how the dust settles on this one. Hopefully, Senator Obama will be able to politically survive this one.

It seems that with this "Fall from grace" thing Obama and Spitzer stories would have a lot more in common. However, Gweyn from This Week on PBS does not have the Obama/Wright story, no she is running a Spitzer and Ferraro story. Someone said Gweyn was "In the tank" for Obama, you were right.

Only thing I can say Will, is I am fully aware of all Hillary's blemishes. Bill's don't count, he can't run for President. The sad thing is that Obama was supposed to be above the "Old" politics as usual, and we are now finding out he is not. He set the bar higher for himself, not us. So when he falls from grace, it seems like he is falling a lot father. He preaches against the same old, same old, and he is just more of it.

tonight they bundled 111 Obama campaign proposals into an amendment for a bill and Obama was forced to vote against his own campaign proposals.

The amendment went down to defeat 97-0.

His campaign proposals would cost $1.4 TRILLION dollars if enacted. The vote was meant to force people to note the craziness of this amateur's campaign promises.

It was clear, and Obama was FURIOUS, that he had been shown to be a fool and incapable of sound spending.

I can't put the link here, so google Obama Votes against His Own Bill - and see for yourselves.

This nasty Republican jerk did it on purpose, but it sure as hell made a very sound point. Obama is not ready to lead a choir, let alone a country. He has a lot of learning to do, and a lot of growing up to do. And ugly stares at people don't scare people in power.

And if this video of him nodding in Trinity, to a Hate Speech is shown, he is finished, completely finished. His campaign would have to end. No one would ever support that, if they saw it with their own two eyes. And then there will be riots. This is a frame up. This is a set up. As if someone put a gun to his head, and made him show up at the church, and nod in agreement.

Being in the music business I have many black friends and associates. It is a different world. We all respect each other and we don't have racist problems that arise. Most of the black people I know are wonderful human beings, so why is there such a part of America that is so racist? Blacks hating whites, whites hating blacks. You would think in 2008 we would all be able to live with each other , no matter what our skin tone is.

Hate to say it...but I told you so. This is bad for dems in November.I don't think he can claim electability now.

2009. You are correct. Information in 1992 was mostly television, print and radio. In 2008 we have instant access at our fingertips . All news of importance good or bad spreads like wildfire immediately.
In 1992 approx 300,000 people had internet access in the USA. In 2003 the figure was 55 million. I am sure it must be close to 80 million today

Chan stated:

Like I said, how would this resolve the following issues:

1)How would this issue end the war?

2)How would this rude the cost of gas?

3)How would this improve health care?

4)How would this improve the mortgage crisis?

5)How would this improve the situation at the borders?

6)How would this cancel our budget deficits.

I AGREE!

Man, I am not an Obama supporter, but this is out of control. He's getting the Kitchen sink, the 3 bedroom house and the family suv thrown at him it seems in a 24 hour period. If this doesn't destroy him, it will surely give him pause to think about why he ran for the Presidency in the first place.

Karut: They are not too excited in Pa,OH,WV,KY, and I bet if we could do over some more states besides FL and MI, he would lose after this. If you think that working class americans who love,work and die for america are not offended to the point that if they have to decide between McCain a true american hero and Obama who just now found out that he loves america then Obama love does have you blinded.

You mean there is a video with Obama agreeing with a hate Wright Speech? Or just a normal speech?

Will, I am TOTALLY against, viciously against, church uniting with state. I hope for nothing but the permanent separation of church and state, so don't worry there. I think faith taken to its unproveable extremes should be labeled as Cult Behavior. Fundamentalism is NEVER healthy. It is the religious psychos that will blow us up long before the scientists. They don't have the passion and quick hair trigger tempers that religious zealots do. No scientist would be so pissed about losing funds that he would fly a plane into a building. But a religious nutcase, POed because his unseen god has been insulted, would not hesitate to destroy the planet in the name of said invisible god.

It worries me when religion creeps into the system because in the end, it would be the church in power that decides who god talks to and who doesn't, and who god supports and who god doesn't.

Thanks Marie.

For backing me up.

Newsmax and Davis are going to make millions out of that tape of Obama in the Aug 2007 Hate America speech by Wright in which Obama was listening, nodding and acknowledging each of Wright's words.

Just saw Obama on fox news with Major Garrett, man, he was stuttering so bad, I started to feel sorry for him. Major asked some hard questions and called him out on some shucking and jiving at the end.

MattOhio stated:

"Just find that photo or video placing Obama in one of Wright's racist hateful sermons and his campaign is over. He has lied to the American public on National television."

Reporter Jim Davis of Newsmax, dated Aug. 9, 2007, states that he (Davis) was in Trinity Church and Obama was present during one of Rev. Wright's racist rants. He says that Obama, along with members of the congregation, were nodding with approval at the rant. Google this. Whenever I post the link, my post here gets deleted for some reason.

Yes, if they find a video or photo of Obama, at a sermon of hate, who's date can be traced definitively, he is in very very deep trouble.

I think that is why he did not completely say clearly I was never ever there when he said those things - he said he would have left the church if he has heard Wright repeat those statements. But he knows that somewhere there may be photos of him so he is really balancing on a tightrope.

If he says never, and then they show him sitting there, or even better clapping along - he is a dead duck.

If this steady "drip, drip drip" of negative associations and missteps by Obama continue, voters in Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina et al will be begging the superdelegates to move to Clinton since they can't take back their own votes for this guy who's just not equipped. And to think I actually believed he could be Clinton's VP.

Mr. Obama wants us to beleive that for the 20 yrs. that he has been going to this church he had never heard anything like this from Rev. Wright. Well if you buy that then I have some land between two houses in Chicago I want to sell you.

Just watched CNN, Anderson Cooper 360(still watching it). I guess all I can say is religion and politics go together in America. Sen. McCain has similar problems too. Only Hillary is clean so far on this issue. GO Hillary 08.

"Will, no matter how much you hate it, you can't erase it.

20 years attendance means you have the full support of the institution and you in return, fully support that institution."

This is an absolute rainy cloud for Obama. No questions about it. But, I don't believe in the guilty by association angle. When I have brought issue with the Ferraro comment, I made it clear...it wasnt so much that Ferraro said what she said, it's that Hillary would not reject the comments as she led people to believe she would in a previous debate. I don't care if she was associated with Hillary's campaign just like I dont care that Chelsea campaigns for her mom, or Oprah for BO, or HC/BO gets endorsed by whomever...I care what their stance is on issues and whether I believe them or not.

"He is carefully dancing around right now, because he knows if anyone has a picture of him as a service that was inflammatory, and on sale in the Gift Shop, he is dead on arrival. He cannot make a blanket denial for this very reason. To be caught in that would be fatal."

No, not quite. But, I don't watch CSI...I could be wrong. If you notice, I think it's going to be tough for Obama or Hillary to win the GE. They are doing a great job of tearing the Dem Party down or at least their surrogates are.

"So he is going to dodge and have all his bloggers and surrogates try to bring up McCain and his church, or Regan long dead, and his church, or bring up Clinton, or whatever it takes to change the subject."

And why are you against bringing up evidence? You'd prefer to bring up hypotheticals

"But this is serious because of the crazy Republican Ultra-Patriotic wing. They will never let this go."

I absolutely agree with you on this. But, I do not believe they will not attack Hillary on issues nor do I not believe Obama can't outlive this issue.

"I am not saying I agree with those nutcases, Will, I don't. I have despised those people my entire life. I have debated those people my entire life. I think they should take that flag and burn themselves alive in it. I do not support the Civil War Rising Again. But you can't ignore it because you don't like it."

What you don't understand, I am not a die-hard Obamanite. I can be persuaded with the right evidence. This is not a "deal-breaker" for me. Since I know of the problems with Hillary, I can say this is not enough to make me say change my vote. You have not proven that Obama is a racist or believes this guys rants.

"It is going to be held against him to the end. Look at the stupid fuss over the flag pin? I mean they dragged that out for weeks. And this is much worse. And he has not been honest."

True. What I keep trying to tell you, neither have the clintons. You flinch when I bring up Clintons, as I keep telling you, you are holding Obama to some bar that you arent demanding of the Clintons.

"And there are MANY things he has distorted. So he has a lot of answering now that the party is over for him."

Alright, lets start airing them out. For both sides.

I believe that Barack Obama's political career is over. There is no media spin that can make this go away. There is no way he can defend himself. The facts are the facts. The dream is over. How could anyone ever elect him to be the President of the United States of America?

PS new story - on politico . com

We have Obama caught in ANOTHER lie about something ELSE

It seems that the Rezko money is much more than was revealed before now. It is up to $250,000 now, and yes we know about clinton, this is about Obama right now, so now Obama says 90,000 of it couldn't be turned to charity - it seems they have spent it already.

head over and see the story if you think I am lying. Of course, once you read it, you will say POLITICO is lying, so what is the use, really.

politico . com / news / stories / 0308/9049 if you want to fact check me.

I don't know if I can put that address in here though, so sorry if I am not allowed?

virginia - the new york times also said mccain was cozying up to a lobbyist. do you believe everything you read? obama was putting distance between them? the picture plastered all over the place is a recent one.

Reverend Wirght and Obama are clearly self righteous. The say anything one liner campaign is over.

Lets start looking at the slums left as slums in Chicago. Is a sin.

Bush like votes to continue the war in the Senate. Is a sin.

Land deal with Rezko. Is a sin

Having you kids listen to hate sermons every week is a sin.

A man of integrity would never sit through 20 years of Rev. Wright.

A man of integrity would never allow his wife to work at a hospital that overcharges for drugs and services by 538%, while it gives her a pay RAISE of 212,000 a week AFTER Obama is elected to office. They also, through public record and the IRS, show they charge blacks more than whites.

A man of integrity would never claim a civil rights march in 1965 helped his parents feel safe enough to love and have him - in 1961.

A man of integrity would never deregulate a bill so terribly his own party would reject it because his donor Exelon was exerting special pressure on the senator.

A man of integrity would never lie about his name being African when it is completely Arabic, Barack (Baraka - blessed in Arabic) Hussein (must I?) Obama (really? Swahili? Look it up)

A man of integrity would not lie about being a Professor of Law when he was only a senior lecturer on leave.

A man of integrity would not lie about being a Constitutional Lawyer when he was again, only a senior Lecturer ON LEAVE.

A man of integrity would not say he wrote the Ethics Bill when he had nothing to do with it, from beginning to end.

A man of integrity wouldn't hide from his Muslim roots just to win an election.

A man of integrity would not have had a real estate deal with a known investigated criminal.

A man of integrity would never have denied his own campaign created the first negative ad of the campaign - 1984 - was created by one of his own, on his Apple laptop, in one afternoon.

A man of integrity would not invent news articles about race to endear unsuspecting people.

A man of integrity would not have insulted someone on connections to Wal-Mart when their wife is directly connected to Wal-Mart.

Those are a few of a very long list. He is no man of integrity.

"See all the paid bloggers bring up 1992 and Bill Clinton's Presidency, trying to change this blog again? See it."

No, the american citizen attempting to correct the paid Clinton blogger is bringing pertenint information since you obviously want o hold your candidate to a different standard. Are you saying historical fact is not evidence? Can't bring up 1992 then why can Hillary bring up 35 years?

"Distract. Dodge. Distort. Divert. Make sure you never ever answer the questions. Point the other way. Make sure you never tell them yes or no, just go down the middle."

The answer isnt to your liking. But that doesnt make it not true.

"Clinton's Past Does Not Excuse Obama's Present."

OK, yet you have made every attempt to bring up 20 years of his attendance at a church. Be real.

Like I said, how would this resolve the following issues:

1)How would this issue end the war?

2)How would this rude the cost of gas?

3)How would this improve health care?

4)How would this improve the mortgage? crisis?

5)How would this improve the situation at the borders?

6)How would this cancel our budget deficits?
The fact is there are so many important issues I'll rather discuss than this old angry pastors problems. This is not a Jerry Springer Show. Let's discuss important issues that affect our lives.

virginia - had obama not gotten caught with this wright scandal, wright would be inhabiting the lincoln bedroom.

at 3am, that's who would be picking up the phone. wright. telling your children that their daddy is overseas fighting a war that their great-granddaddy started.

obama should resign.

Vanessa, how has Clinton proven herself to be a "disgrace to woman"? You can say a lot of things about her, but you surely can't say that.

You only make yourself look bad, if you make an outrageous statement and back it up with nothing. It also only makes anyone with half a brain want to vote for anyone other than who you want.

Hillary '08 or bust!

Vanessa, you're seventeen and this is what you choose to do with your free time? Very impressive. Truly Vanessa. But I still want Hillary. Sorry.

See all the paid bloggers bring up 1992 and Bill Clinton's Presidency, trying to change this blog again? See it.

Distract. Dodge. Distort. Divert. Make sure you never ever answer the questions. Point the other way. Make sure you never tell them yes or no, just go down the middle.

Clinton's Past Does Not Excuse Obama's Present.

Will, errant as it is, thanks for the response –

"Obama got rid of him. I guess that's that."
You know that is not that. You can't take back your life long friendship, your life long church attendance, or twenty years of donations. I'm can't wait to see how Obama will charm his way out of this one.

Yes, Obama is the most liberal person in the senate. Frequently quoted in articles. Look it up.

I suppose it depends on one's definition, but Clinton is very close in the popular vote, and I'll be surprised if she doesn't take it in the end (especially now). Of 27.6 million votes cast, she is down by about 102,000 (ABC news website).

I would say up until Saturday Night Live, Obama had free reign in the media. Perhaps this was done with Bill Clinton in '92 – it doesn't make it any less true.

Your deluding yourself if you think the media is covering up anything that might be out there on Hillary. Most of the media don't like her. By the way, how many times does she have to say she will release her tax returns by April 15th?

Obama has had a great campaign strategy picking off delegates in red states, but that is not going to mean anything in November. Like it or not, Hillary is the only that has a chance against McCain. If some of you can get over whatever qualms you have with her personality and style, you will realize that she's the only one that it is going to stand up to the republicans and be able to take it and get something done. Don't forget, her and Obama vote about 95% the same.

Hillary 08' or bust!

"So obama has been close to this man for 20 years, by his own admission. he's like amember of the family. Obama gives his ministry $20,000 a year and he doesn't know what the guy is preaching in his sermons?? And the guy has been preaching this way for years.

How can Obama be trusted to run a governement, if he doesn't even know the views a close personal friend and spiritual advisor he financially supports is espousing from the pulpit?"

I agree! If you don't know what you pastor...or your SPOUSE is up to...you shouldn't be running this country. Hmm, how did I get spouse twisted in there?

Someone check the man's tax returns he loves to bring up all the time and see how much of the Obama's money has gone into promoting this hatred please, when these videos were made etc.

Someone, some investigative journalist, somewhere on the planet and check his itinery to see when he was actually in church.

The man is lying through his teeth. Someone do their job. Please.

i see posts doing the predictable things - attacking clinton, trying to distance obama from his pastor, or going into arguments about numbers of delegates. re clinton attacks - whatever you think about clinton is one thing, but doesn't change anything about obama. re distancing - not gonna work. can't call someone your 20 year spiritual adviser then get (reasonable) people to believe you had no clue what he was about. re numbers of delegates - neither obama nor clinton will have enough without superdelegates. and the wright thing is going to look REALLY bad for obama as the superdelegates evaluate whether he's electable in november - which he isn't.

and vanessa at 17 years old - your youth may explain your views. but most of the electorate aren't 17.