*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (1 Viewer)

[remote controller]

"I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus," Obama told ABC News, "but I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude."

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

 

[flufhed]

As an Obama koolaid drinker, I am starting to sniff the Koolaid a little bit. Not ready to say that this changes my opinion of Obama, but it is starting to affect my opinion of whether he can win in the general. It is difficult to believe he had no clue about his pastor's comments.

 

[Sweet J]

As an Obama koolaid drinker, I am starting to sniff the Koolaid a little bit. Not ready to say that this changes my opinion of Obama, but it is starting to affect my opinion of whether he can win in the general. It is difficult to believe he had no clue about his pastor's comments.

I hate to be that guy, but I'm not sure I disagree with all of his pastor's comments. Now, I understand blue collar America doesn't like them, but that doesn't make them patently false.That being said, can someone post a summary or list of the pastor's statements? I haven't waded into the "obama's pastor" thread, because I am sure it is full of antagonism and jerks.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Re: Jeremiah Woods - As the other thread has predictably turned into a racial, and even regional fight, i'd like to discuss how everyone thinks this will impact Obama's campaign. Both now in the primary and, should he win the nomination, in the General.

My overall take is that this will be bad, very very bad. I personally think that Obama is intelligent enough to decipher the good from the bad in this guys sermons. But, you cant have someone's preacher, someone who they supposedly look to for guidance (supposedly), being this far out there like Woods.

I think this will give many fence sitters just enough push to at least not vote for Obama. It may not drive them to HRC or McCain, but it certainly cant encourage the majority of undecideds to get behind Obama. And should Obama win the primary, the GOP will be ALL over this story. Playing to the heart strings of patriots everywhere.

just dont see how this one wont maintain legs for a while to come, and possibly become a main talking point amongst his opponents.

Generally speaking, I think it's better to be getting a lot of press now. Obviously many people will be put off, but I think over time most people will be able to separate out the fact that Obama clearly doesn't believe these things and that we aren't voting for the "Spiritual Advisers" of Presidents. The ones that can't make that distinction probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. It probably does hurt more in terms of the Democratic race, since we've gotten past the point of this being about issues about a month ago. All things being equal though, it's probably better that this is being talked about now rather than in the two or three days before PA. Most people will probably have forgotten about it by then.

I see this situation as a test of Obama's character. Will he stand up for what's right and denounce Wright or will he stick to damage control policies and evade the issue. If it's the latter, he won't get my vote.

He has already categorically denounced these positions.

I was referring to the man, not just the statements.

Controversial Minister removed from Campaign

I am aware of this. But this isn't going far enough. He is not strongly condemning the man.When more comes out on this, Obama is toast. I just can't see how Obama could know this man for so long without knowing about his radical beliefs. These are two men that are passionate about politics. How could they not have had conversations about these issues?

 

[bigbottom]

And in other news . . .

Obama backer takes aim at Clinton's experience

(CNN) – Former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig continued to take aim at Hillary Clinton's foreign policy claims Friday, telling the National Journal that the former first lady has "grossly exaggerated the nature of her experience."

"If you're running for president on the basis of your claims of experience, when you then cite examples, you should be careful to be accurate," Craig said. "The evidence should be accurate. And my point is that Senator Clinton and her supporters have in serious ways overstated, if not grossly exaggerated, the nature of her experience."

"I think she is misleading the American public on the nature of her experience," he also said.Craig, a supporter of Barack Obama, was the director of policy planning at the State Department under former President Clinton.

He was a top adviser to former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and served as counsel to former President Clinton during the impeachment hearings.

His comments come days after he penned a strongly worded memo on behalf of the Obama campaign that appeared to suggest the New York senator was not ready to be commander in chief."Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed 'the commander-in-chief test' is simply not supported by her record," he wrote in that memo.

The Clinton campaign called the memo a "false and misleading attack."Pressed about those comments Friday, Craig appeared to dial back, saying, "I think she would be a capable commander in chief.

I think Barack Obama, who is my candidate, would also be a capable commander in chief. I'm not denigrating that."But Craig specifically took issue with Clinton's claim of having a role in the Northern Ireland peace process."

It's a little bit presumptuous for the first lady, who would meet people and support people to take credit away from the Irish themselves who did it," he said.Pressed about her role in the process, Clinton told NPR earlier this week, "I wasn't sitting at the negotiating table, but the role I played was instrumental."

But it's no angry black preacher story.

 

[SharkBait]

I know most of you do not like Hillary. I know how you feel, I hate McCain or some say McSame. I swore I would never vote for that traitor. But I found something out about me- It would be very hard for me to stray very far from my political center. I am guessing that if Hillary won the race by hook or by (being a) crook that you will find it hard for you to stray from your political center as well. You really don't want either Obama or HRC to be damaged goods coming out of the primary.

It's a lot shorter drift for me to head over to McCain than it was for me to "shift" over to Obama. A lot of us Republicans are (perhaps naively) hoping this guy gets in there without being in someone's pocket for a change. If we're back to politics as usual, it's real easy to migrate back to McCain. Oh, and I love whoever coined "McSame". By all means let's make him out to be a clone of GWB.

 

[Sweet J]

I am aware of this. But this isn't going far enough. He is not strongly condemning the man.

Are these the comments that people are upset about?

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a '######!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person." Video Watch Wright berate Clinton from the pulpit »Wright, who retired from his post earlier this year, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

Hillary was not, indeed, a black boy raised in a single parent home. Obama is, indeed a black man, and this country and culture are -- like it or not, controlled by rich white people (I guess we can use a number of measures: boards of directors of fortune 500 companies, number of Congressman, governors, presidents, business leaders, etc.). Hillary, to my knowledge, has never been called the N-word, or defined as a non-person (although it remains to be seen whether Obama has -- which I guess would be my strongest problem with his statement). And his last statement is more rhetorical than anything, and I guess it can be read as inflamatory, but he's speaking to a certain audience. Am I crazy by thinking that these aren't "horrible" statements? A little silly, maybe. But "hateful?" I dunno.

"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," he said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The state terrorism against the Palestinians statement I cannot agree with or defend. Mostly because I don't know enough about the Isreal/Palestinian conflict. But this seems to be a statement that I'd be uncomfortable with a supporter making.We have supported state terrorism in the form of Apartied in South Africa, didn't we?And he didn't mention it, but we took a blind eye to Saddham's crimes when we wanted to use him against Iran, right? We took a blind eye with the situation in Darfor, right? We were likely on the wrong side in a NUMBER of Central American conflicts -- I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out we supported "state terrorism" with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, for example. But again, I don't know enough about the particular states involved.Re: the chickens coming home to roost: The fact is, this country has made a lot of enemies with our actions. That certainly was some of the underlying stuff with 9-11. OBL specifically referenced our actions with Isreal. That doesn't make the 9-11 bombers right, but are we not allowed to discuss our enemies' rationale?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am aware of this. But this isn't going far enough. He is not strongly condemning the man.

Are these the comments that people are upset about?

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a '######!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person." Video Watch Wright berate Clinton from the pulpit »Wright, who retired from his post earlier this year, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

Hillary was not, indeed, a black boy raised in a single parent home. Obama is, indeed a black man, and this country and culture are -- like it or not, controlled by rich white people (I guess we can use a number of measures: boards of directors of fortune 500 companies, number of Congressman, governors, presidents, business leaders, etc.). Hillary, to my knowledge, has never been called the N-word, or defined as a non-person (although it remains to be seen whether Obama has -- which I guess would be my strongest problem with his statement). And his last statement is more rhetorical than anything, and I guess it can be read as inflamatory, but he's speaking to a certain audience. Am I crazy by thinking that these aren't "horrible" statements? A little silly, maybe. But "hateful?" I dunno.

It's race-baiting. On the surface, Wright's comments are accurate, but there's a deliberate under-current of "Vote for your fellow black guy" in that message, too.

"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," he said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The state terrorism against the Palestinians statement I cannot agree with or defend. Mostly because I don't know enough about the Isreal/Palestinian conflict. But this seems to be a statement that I'd be uncomfortable with a supporter making.We have supported state terrorism in the form of Apartied in South Africa, didn't we?And he didn't mention it, but we took a blind eye to Saddham's crimes when we wanted to use him against Iran, right? We took a blind eye with the situation in Darfor, right? We were likely on the wrong side in a NUMBER of Central American conflicts -- I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out we supported "state terrorism" with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, for example. But again, I don't know enough about the particular states involved.Re: the chickens coming home to roost: The fact is, this country has made a lot of enemies with our actions. That certainly was some of the underlying stuff with 9-11. OBL specifically referenced our actions with Isreal. That doesn't make the 9-11 bombers right, but are we not allowed to discuss our enemies' rationale?

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

 

[Sweet J]

I am aware of this. But this isn't going far enough. He is not strongly condemning the man.

Are these the comments that people are upset about?

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single parent home. Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a '######!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person." Video Watch Wright berate Clinton from the pulpit »Wright, who retired from his post earlier this year, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

Hillary was not, indeed, a black boy raised in a single parent home. Obama is, indeed a black man, and this country and culture are -- like it or not, controlled by rich white people (I guess we can use a number of measures: boards of directors of fortune 500 companies, number of Congressman, governors, presidents, business leaders, etc.). Hillary, to my knowledge, has never been called the N-word, or defined as a non-person (although it remains to be seen whether Obama has -- which I guess would be my strongest problem with his statement). And his last statement is more rhetorical than anything, and I guess it can be read as inflamatory, but he's speaking to a certain audience. Am I crazy by thinking that these aren't "horrible" statements? A little silly, maybe. But "hateful?" I dunno.

It's race-baiting. On the surface, Wright's comments are accurate, but there's a deliberate under-current of "Vote for your fellow black guy" in that message, too.

Yeah, I think that is my problem with it, too. Very similar to the Ferraro stuff, I think. Sure, some of it may be objectively accurate, but the undercurrent is a wink and a nod to your "real" audience.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

Would you tolerate a Presidential or vice-presidential candidate who, for his entire adult life, regularly attended religious services where women were treated as second-class citizens?

 

[Sweet J]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

I think I am in total agreement with you. You know, what this guy reminds me of is a 20 year-old college kid who is just learning about the world, and scratches the surface of knowledge of the subject, but doesn't know enough about the intracacies of his material to really have an educated opinion. Sure, some of the things he says have a "basis" in fact, but the conclusions just don't follow.Ironically, he is the soul mate to the 20 year old Republican kid who reads Fountainhead and the 20 year old Steelworker's son who thinks his dad's friends will lose all their job's to the blacks because of quotas.The problem, of course, is that he isn't 20 years old.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Some of the quotes from Wright that are getting attention:

"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

"We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/polit...8/03/obama.html

Wright has also attracted controversy for his association with Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.[10] Wright travelled to Libya with Farrakhan in the 1980s. In 2007, Wright addressed this by saying "When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Colonel Gadaffi with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

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

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, ### #### America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "### #### America for treating our citizens as less than human. ### #### America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788&page=1J

 

[Joe Bryant]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

I think I am in total agreement with you. You know, what this guy reminds me of is a 20 year-old college kid who is just learning about the world, and scratches the surface of knowledge of the subject, but doesn't know enough about the intracacies of his material to really have an educated opinion. Sure, some of the things he says have a "basis" in fact, but the conclusions just don't follow.Ironically, he is the soul mate to the 20 year old Republican kid who reads Fountainhead and the 20 year old Steelworker's son who thinks his dad's friends will lose all their job's to the blacks because of quotas.The problem, of course, is that he isn't 20 years old.

To be fair, he grew up in a radically different time than I did as a white 40 year old guy. He grew up in a very different time than Obama did. I understand the guy's anger. I don't think that excuses what he says. But I understand. I don't think it's fair to say he's naive. J

 

[SharkBait]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

Would you tolerate a Presidential or vice-presidential candidate who, for his entire adult life, regularly attended religious services where women were treated as second-class citizens?

That would be the church at work as much as the pastor...

 

[Sweet J]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

I think I am in total agreement with you. You know, what this guy reminds me of is a 20 year-old college kid who is just learning about the world, and scratches the surface of knowledge of the subject, but doesn't know enough about the intracacies of his material to really have an educated opinion. Sure, some of the things he says have a "basis" in fact, but the conclusions just don't follow.Ironically, he is the soul mate to the 20 year old Republican kid who reads Fountainhead and the 20 year old Steelworker's son who thinks his dad's friends will lose all their job's to the blacks because of quotas.The problem, of course, is that he isn't 20 years old.

To be fair, he grew up in a radically different time than I did as a white 40 year old guy. He grew up in a very different time than Obama did. I understand the guy's anger. I don't think that excuses what he says. But I understand. I don't think it's fair to say he's naive. J

Fair point.

 

[Juxtatarot]

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obviously, I have a lot of problems with Wright but this is good example. He is comparing the morality of the 9/11 attacks to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. American involvement in WWII was a necessary war to fight. Virtually everyone agrees with this. Most historians would also agree that the dropping of these bombs was the only way to provide a quick end to the war. On a net basis, a land invasion would have created more death and destruction. It is tragic that so many died but there was no better solution.9/11, on the other hand, was a terrorist act aimed mainly at innocent civilians. It served no other purpose. To morally link these events is ridiculous. Taking this along with all the other material we have viewed and read about Wright in the last few days, an imagine of him becomes quite clear: He is a bigot who twists reality to fit his preconceived worldview instead of looking at events objectively. For a person of his power and influence, this is truly unacceptable and dangerous.

 

[Sweet J]

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obviously, I have a lot of problems with Wright but this is good example. He is comparing the morality of the 9/11 attacks to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. American involvement in WWII was a necessary war to fight. Virtually everyone agrees with this. Most historians would also agree that the dropping of these bombs was the only way to provide a quick end to the war. On a net basis, a land invasion would have created more death and destruction. It is tragic that so many died but there was no better solution.9/11, on the other hand, was a terrorist act aimed mainly at innocent civilians. It served no other purpose. To morally link these events is ridiculous. Taking this along with all the other material we have viewed and read about Wright in the last few days, an imagine of him becomes quite clear: He is a bigot who twists reality to fit his preconceived worldview instead of looking at events objectively. For a person of his power and influence, this is truly unacceptable and dangerous.

He is not saying that 9-11 and Hiroshima were morally the same. Rather, he is saying that the U.S. has done a lot of nasty things in the past, and that other people in the world are rightly mad at us (i.e., the "you reep what you sow" statement). Sure, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were part of a "war." But were they both necessary? Was it necessary to firebomb Dresdin into bolivian? Who knows. But I am not going to pretend that just because this is an awesome country (and it is) that this country hasn't done "very bad things" to other people. In fact, to sustain any country's (or Tribe's) dominance in the hostile world, that Country (or Tribe) is going to have to do very bad things. But it certainly does lend itself to a certain cost-benefit analysis. And it is unwise to ignore the morally dubious actions our country has taken in the past (those who ignore history, yada yada). So yes, lots of people in the world are angry with the U.S.

 

[Juxtatarot]

he is saying that the U.S. has done a lot of nasty things in the past, and that other people in the world are rightly mad at us

Did you see the video of this? He is implying much more. He is implying that the 9/11 attacks were justified due to the evil actions of white America.

 

[SharkBait]

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obviously, I have a lot of problems with Wright but this is good example. He is comparing the morality of the 9/11 attacks to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. American involvement in WWII was a necessary war to fight. Virtually everyone agrees with this. Most historians would also agree that the dropping of these bombs was the only way to provide a quick end to the war. On a net basis, a land invasion would have created more death and destruction. It is tragic that so many died but there was no better solution.9/11, on the other hand, was a terrorist act aimed mainly at innocent civilians. It served no other purpose. To morally link these events is ridiculous. Taking this along with all the other material we have viewed and read about Wright in the last few days, an imagine of him becomes quite clear: He is a bigot who twists reality to fit his preconceived worldview instead of looking at events objectively. For a person of his power and influence, this is truly unacceptable and dangerous.

When I was in grade school (in the 60's) we had to interview our parents and one of the interview questions was "Do you feel like dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was the right thing to do.". Back then, 100% of the answers was "Absolutely". My mother's words, "My brothers and cousins were off in that war. The bomb being dropped meant they got to come home alive. Dropping that bomb also saved thousands of Japanese lives as well". It's less personal for people today, so they start looking at the morality issue.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

Would you tolerate a Presidential or vice-presidential candidate who, for his entire adult life, regularly attended religious services where women were treated as second-class citizens?

It would depend on exactly what you mean by "second-class citizens." If we were talking about a lifelong Catholic, that would be okay. If we were talking a church where women weren't allowed to speak or something like that, then yes I would have a big problem with that.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

Would you tolerate a Presidential or vice-presidential candidate who, for his entire adult life, regularly attended religious services where women were treated as second-class citizens?

It would depend on exactly what you mean by "second-class citizens." If we were talking about a lifelong Catholic, that would be okay. If we were talking a church where women weren't allowed to speak or something like that, then yes I would have a big problem with that.

I was talking about Joe Lieberman. The synagogue he attended for most of his life is the same synagogue I went to when I grew up. Women are not allowed to read the Torah. They can't be rabbis. They don't "count" for purposes of determining whether enough people are in attendance to pray together ("a minyon"). They have to sit in separate sections from the men. Boys have their bat mitzvahs on the sabbath, but girls are not permitted to do the same.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

Would you tolerate a Presidential or vice-presidential candidate who, for his entire adult life, regularly attended religious services where women were treated as second-class citizens?

It would depend on exactly what you mean by "second-class citizens." If we were talking about a lifelong Catholic, that would be okay. If we were talking a church where women weren't allowed to speak or something like that, then yes I would have a big problem with that.

I was talking about Joe Lieberman. The synagogue he attended for most of his life is the same synagogue I went to when I grew up. Women are not allowed to read the Torah. They can't be rabbis. They don't "count" for purposes of determining whether enough people are in attendance to pray together ("a minyon"). They have to sit in separate sections from the men. Boys have their bat mitzvahs on the sabbath, but girls are not permitted to do the same.

That's interesting, and I didn't know that. I don't know all that much about the various strains of Judaism.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

Would you tolerate a Presidential or vice-presidential candidate who, for his entire adult life, regularly attended religious services where women were treated as second-class citizens?

It would depend on exactly what you mean by "second-class citizens." If we were talking about a lifelong Catholic, that would be okay. If we were talking a church where women weren't allowed to speak or something like that, then yes I would have a big problem with that.

I was talking about Joe Lieberman. The synagogue he attended for most of his life is the same synagogue I went to when I grew up. Women are not allowed to read the Torah. They can't be rabbis. They don't "count" for purposes of determining whether enough people are in attendance to pray together ("a minyon"). They have to sit in separate sections from the men. Boys have their bat mitzvahs on the sabbath, but girls are not permitted to do the same.

That's interesting, and I didn't know that. I don't know all that much about the various strains of Judaism.

I didn't know that either. Is that a certain type of Judaism? Is it still like that?J

 

[Sweet J]

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obviously, I have a lot of problems with Wright but this is good example. He is comparing the morality of the 9/11 attacks to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. American involvement in WWII was a necessary war to fight. Virtually everyone agrees with this. Most historians would also agree that the dropping of these bombs was the only way to provide a quick end to the war. On a net basis, a land invasion would have created more death and destruction. It is tragic that so many died but there was no better solution.9/11, on the other hand, was a terrorist act aimed mainly at innocent civilians. It served no other purpose. To morally link these events is ridiculous. Taking this along with all the other material we have viewed and read about Wright in the last few days, an imagine of him becomes quite clear: He is a bigot who twists reality to fit his preconceived worldview instead of looking at events objectively. For a person of his power and influence, this is truly unacceptable and dangerous.

When I was in grade school (in the 60's) we had to interview our parents and one of the interview questions was "Do you feel like dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was the right thing to do.". Back then, 100% of the answers was "Absolutely". My mother's words, "My brothers and cousins were off in that war. The bomb being dropped meant they got to come home alive. Dropping that bomb also saved thousands of Japanese lives as well". It's less personal for people today, so they start looking at the morality issue.

Let me be clear: Just because I may think about something in "moral" terms, doesn't mean that I don't agree with the decision. I understand all the reasons for why we did what we did. I guess I was just saying that there are probably situations in this country's history where doing what was "right" for this country isn't necessarily the "moral" thing to do. And I am 100% ok with this concept (which is why I wouldn't necessarily want a "moral leader" as my president).In fact, all of this goes into a cost-benefit analysis in making a decision, right? We need to analyze not only: 1) was this decision better for our country, but also 2) Is this the "morally right" thing to do. The more "right" it is for our country, the less "moral" it needs to be. BUT ALSO, when analyzing whether it is "right" for our country, we will have to include in our analysis the affect our decisions will have on the other countries in the world, because we will need to interact with them in the future, and we can't have them thinking we are "evil."

 

[Trey]

Obviously it fluctuates wildly at this point in time for all sorts of reasons, but it seems that the Reverend definitely caused a blip in public consciousness:

Friday's Daily Tracking Poll

Obama 50

Clinton 42

Today's Daily Tracking Poll

Obama 46 (-4)

Clinton 45 (+3)

 

[suspected]

most recent polls now showing mccain vs clinton a better matchup for the dems

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The 9/11 stuff isn't very nice, but I agree it's not super-objectionable by itself. The "### #### America" bit is more over-the-top though. There's also a clip in which Wright denigrates black Republicans, specifically Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. I found that to be one of the more groteque parts of Wright's sermons. Would any of us tolerate a white pastor who criticized white Democrats as traitors to their race?

Would you tolerate a Presidential or vice-presidential candidate who, for his entire adult life, regularly attended religious services where women were treated as second-class citizens?

It would depend on exactly what you mean by "second-class citizens." If we were talking about a lifelong Catholic, that would be okay. If we were talking a church where women weren't allowed to speak or something like that, then yes I would have a big problem with that.

I was talking about Joe Lieberman. The synagogue he attended for most of his life is the same synagogue I went to when I grew up. Women are not allowed to read the Torah. They can't be rabbis. They don't "count" for purposes of determining whether enough people are in attendance to pray together ("a minyon"). They have to sit in separate sections from the men. Boys have their bat mitzvahs on the sabbath, but girls are not permitted to do the same.

That's interesting, and I didn't know that. I don't know all that much about the various strains of Judaism.

I didn't know that either. Is that a certain type of Judaism? Is it still like that?J

Yup, Orthodox Judaism. It has been very resistant to any changes in gender roles or in other areas.

 

[whitem0nkey]

To be fair, he grew up in a radically different time than I did as a white 40 year old guy. He grew up in a very different time than Obama did. I understand the guy's anger. I don't think that excuses what he says. But I understand. I don't think it's fair to say he's naive. J

I agree, this is something I can relate to but from a different angle, im 28 years old and Polish. when we have family get-togethers the older generation will sometimes make anti-Semitic statements, that parallel Wrights anti white comments. But I as someone who is from a different generation than them I don't share those beliefs and feelings. and I reject and denounce them. about any kind of background.And Obama on Olbermann yesterday said a similar thing.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obviously, I have a lot of problems with Wright but this is good example. He is comparing the morality of the 9/11 attacks to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. American involvement in WWII was a necessary war to fight. Virtually everyone agrees with this. Most historians would also agree that the dropping of these bombs was the only way to provide a quick end to the war. On a net basis, a land invasion would have created more death and destruction. It is tragic that so many died but there was no better solution.9/11, on the other hand, was a terrorist act aimed mainly at innocent civilians. It served no other purpose. To morally link these events is ridiculous. Taking this along with all the other material we have viewed and read about Wright in the last few days, an imagine of him becomes quite clear: He is a bigot who twists reality to fit his preconceived worldview instead of looking at events objectively. For a person of his power and influence, this is truly unacceptable and dangerous.

When I was in grade school (in the 60's) we had to interview our parents and one of the interview questions was "Do you feel like dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was the right thing to do.". Back then, 100% of the answers was "Absolutely". My mother's words, "My brothers and cousins were off in that war. The bomb being dropped meant they got to come home alive. Dropping that bomb also saved thousands of Japanese lives as well". It's less personal for people today, so they start looking at the morality issue.

Let me be clear: Just because I may think about something in "moral" terms, doesn't mean that I don't agree with the decision. I understand all the reasons for why we did what we did. I guess I was just saying that there are probably situations in this country's history where doing what was "right" for this country isn't necessarily the "moral" thing to do. And I am 100% ok with this concept (which is why I wouldn't necessarily want a "moral leader" as my president).In fact, all of this goes into a cost-benefit analysis in making a decision, right? We need to analyze not only: 1) was this decision better for our country, but also 2) Is this the "morally right" thing to do. The more "right" it is for our country, the less "moral" it needs to be. BUT ALSO, when analyzing whether it is "right" for our country, we will have to include in our analysis the affect our decisions will have on the other countries in the world, because we will need to interact with them in the future, and we can't have them thinking we are "evil."

Wasn't there major financial institutions that were in the towers? [These being monetary players against the muslims (from their perspective, not mine)]Thus that statement would be incorrect. It wasn't with no purpose. Though that purpose that they have we obviously take offense to. I think many might have taken offense to atomic bombs also.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Wasn't there major financial institutions that were in the towers? [These being monetary players against the muslims (from their perspective, not mine)]Thus that statement would be incorrect. It wasn't with no purpose. Though that purpose that they have we obviously take offense to. I think many might have taken offense to atomic bombs also.

Yes, but flying planes into these buildings was not going to cause a collapse of the U.S. economy. It was just terrorism.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Wasn't there major financial institutions that were in the towers? [These being monetary players against the muslims (from their perspective, not mine)]Thus that statement would be incorrect. It wasn't with no purpose. Though that purpose that they have we obviously take offense to. I think many might have taken offense to atomic bombs also.

Yes, but flying planes into these buildings was not going to cause a collapse of the U.S. economy. It was just terrorism.

Im not talking about the end result, Im talking about the mindset of the people actually participating in the event.It wasnt for "nothing" for them. It had a serious strategic point.

 

[urbanhack]

Wasn't there major financial institutions that were in the towers? [These being monetary players against the muslims (from their perspective, not mine)]Thus that statement would be incorrect. It wasn't with no purpose. Though that purpose that they have we obviously take offense to. I think many might have taken offense to atomic bombs also.

Yes, but flying planes into these buildings was not going to cause a collapse of the U.S. economy. It was just terrorism.

You don't think 9/11 had an effect on the economy?There was a definitely slow down in travel-related activities and other areas of the economy.Didn't the government subsidize some of the airlines who were hurt by 9/11. There was definitely an economic impact.

 

[bigbottom]

he is saying that the U.S. has done a lot of nasty things in the past, and that other people in the world are rightly mad at us

Did you see the video of this? He is implying much more. He is implying that the 9/11 attacks were justified due to the evil actions of white America.

Interestingly, Jerry Falwell said something quite similar.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

he is saying that the U.S. has done a lot of nasty things in the past, and that other people in the world are rightly mad at us

Did you see the video of this? He is implying much more. He is implying that the 9/11 attacks were justified due to the evil actions of white America.

Interestingly, Jerry Falwell said something quite similar.

One of the many interesting aspects of the past couple days has been the fact that McCain and HRC simply cannot attack Obama on these issues. No way HRC wants to bring up anything about shady Real Estate deals and McCain doesn't want to talk controversial religious advisers. Of course, the media and the court of public opinion are all over it. but, nothing from HRC or McCain to this point. In fact, i think HRC actually dodged a couple Rezko questions in the past day. No link on that as i've read way too many articles and blogs the past few days. But, i do remember seeing it on a major news website

 

[shining path]

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obviously, I have a lot of problems with Wright but this is good example. He is comparing the morality of the 9/11 attacks to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. American involvement in WWII was a necessary war to fight. Virtually everyone agrees with this. Most historians would also agree that the dropping of these bombs was the only way to provide a quick end to the war. On a net basis, a land invasion would have created more death and destruction. It is tragic that so many died but there was no better solution.9/11, on the other hand, was a terrorist act aimed mainly at innocent civilians. It served no other purpose. To morally link these events is ridiculous. Taking this along with all the other material we have viewed and read about Wright in the last few days, an imagine of him becomes quite clear: He is a bigot who twists reality to fit his preconceived worldview instead of looking at events objectively. For a person of his power and influence, this is truly unacceptable and dangerous.

When I was in grade school (in the 60's) we had to interview our parents and one of the interview questions was "Do you feel like dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was the right thing to do.". Back then, 100% of the answers was "Absolutely". My mother's words, "My brothers and cousins were off in that war. The bomb being dropped meant they got to come home alive. Dropping that bomb also saved thousands of Japanese lives as well". It's less personal for people today, so they start looking at the morality issue.

Let me be clear: Just because I may think about something in "moral" terms, doesn't mean that I don't agree with the decision. I understand all the reasons for why we did what we did. I guess I was just saying that there are probably situations in this country's history where doing what was "right" for this country isn't necessarily the "moral" thing to do. And I am 100% ok with this concept (which is why I wouldn't necessarily want a "moral leader" as my president).In fact, all of this goes into a cost-benefit analysis in making a decision, right? We need to analyze not only: 1) was this decision better for our country, but also 2) Is this the "morally right" thing to do. The more "right" it is for our country, the less "moral" it needs to be. BUT ALSO, when analyzing whether it is "right" for our country, we will have to include in our analysis the affect our decisions will have on the other countries in the world, because we will need to interact with them in the future, and we can't have them thinking we are "evil."

Wasn't there major financial institutions that were in the towers? [These being monetary players against the muslims (from their perspective, not mine)]Thus that statement would be incorrect. It wasn't with no purpose. Though that purpose that they have we obviously take offense to. I think many might have taken offense to atomic bombs also.

According to interviews with Obama and his intellectual peers in the Jihadist community, the purpose of high profile terroristic attacks on the US was to get the US involved in a ground war in the Middle East, to bring the Far Enemy (Israel being the Near Enemy) close so that the Islamic world could unite and destroy it.

 

[NCCommish]

We did bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Obviously, I have a lot of problems with Wright but this is good example. He is comparing the morality of the 9/11 attacks to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. American involvement in WWII was a necessary war to fight. Virtually everyone agrees with this. Most historians would also agree that the dropping of these bombs was the only way to provide a quick end to the war. On a net basis, a land invasion would have created more death and destruction. It is tragic that so many died but there was no better solution.9/11, on the other hand, was a terrorist act aimed mainly at innocent civilians. It served no other purpose. To morally link these events is ridiculous. Taking this along with all the other material we have viewed and read about Wright in the last few days, an imagine of him becomes quite clear: He is a bigot who twists reality to fit his preconceived worldview instead of looking at events objectively. For a person of his power and influence, this is truly unacceptable and dangerous.

When I was in grade school (in the 60's) we had to interview our parents and one of the interview questions was "Do you feel like dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was the right thing to do.". Back then, 100% of the answers was "Absolutely". My mother's words, "My brothers and cousins were off in that war. The bomb being dropped meant they got to come home alive. Dropping that bomb also saved thousands of Japanese lives as well". It's less personal for people today, so they start looking at the morality issue.

Let me be clear: Just because I may think about something in "moral" terms, doesn't mean that I don't agree with the decision. I understand all the reasons for why we did what we did. I guess I was just saying that there are probably situations in this country's history where doing what was "right" for this country isn't necessarily the "moral" thing to do. And I am 100% ok with this concept (which is why I wouldn't necessarily want a "moral leader" as my president).In fact, all of this goes into a cost-benefit analysis in making a decision, right? We need to analyze not only: 1) was this decision better for our country, but also 2) Is this the "morally right" thing to do. The more "right" it is for our country, the less "moral" it needs to be. BUT ALSO, when analyzing whether it is "right" for our country, we will have to include in our analysis the affect our decisions will have on the other countries in the world, because we will need to interact with them in the future, and we can't have them thinking we are "evil."

Wasn't there major financial institutions that were in the towers? [These being monetary players against the muslims (from their perspective, not mine)]Thus that statement would be incorrect. It wasn't with no purpose. Though that purpose that they have we obviously take offense to. I think many might have taken offense to atomic bombs also.

According to interviews with Obama and his intellectual peers in the Jihadist community, the purpose of high profile terroristic attacks on the US was to get the US involved in a ground war in the Middle East, to bring the Far Enemy (Israel being the Near Enemy) close so that the Islamic world could unite and destroy it.

Thankfully we avoided that quagmire.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

According to interviews with Obama and his intellectual peers in the Jihadist community, the purpose of high profile terroristic attacks on the US was to get the US involved in a ground war in the Middle East, to bring the Far Enemy (Israel being the Near Enemy) close so that the Islamic world could unite and destroy it.

According to who? And they had several strategic points. Not just one. As nutty as they might be.

 

[Juxtatarot]

he is saying that the U.S. has done a lot of nasty things in the past, and that other people in the world are rightly mad at us

Did you see the video of this? He is implying much more. He is implying that the 9/11 attacks were justified due to the evil actions of white America.

Interestingly, Jerry Falwell said something quite similar.

I'm not sure why this is interesting to you. Falwell is equally ridiculous.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Wasn't there major financial institutions that were in the towers? [These being monetary players against the muslims (from their perspective, not mine)]Thus that statement would be incorrect. It wasn't with no purpose. Though that purpose that they have we obviously take offense to. I think many might have taken offense to atomic bombs also.

Yes, but flying planes into these buildings was not going to cause a collapse of the U.S. economy. It was just terrorism.

You don't think 9/11 had an effect on the economy?There was a definitely slow down in travel-related activities and other areas of the economy.Didn't the government subsidize some of the airlines who were hurt by 9/11. There was definitely an economic impact.

I didn't state that there wasn't an impact. The killing of civilians must only be done in extreme situations. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were necessary. It resulted in less overall death and destruction than if the Americans and/or Russians invaded by land. I feel a little uncomfortable in this conversation because, without a doubt, I believe the 9/11 attacks were not justified. On the other hand, I understand fully that the attacks were partly the result of flawed U.S. foreign policy. Are we discussing that, in the opinions of the Muslim extremists, terrorism is justified? That's an interesting conversation but probably not appropriate in a thread titled "Barack Obama's '08 FBG campaign headquarters".

 

[bigbottom]

he is saying that the U.S. has done a lot of nasty things in the past, and that other people in the world are rightly mad at us

Did you see the video of this? He is implying much more. He is implying that the 9/11 attacks were justified due to the evil actions of white America.

Interestingly, Jerry Falwell said something quite similar.

I'm not sure why this is interesting to you. Falwell is equally ridiculous.

Good point.

 

[Juxtatarot]

he is saying that the U.S. has done a lot of nasty things in the past, and that other people in the world are rightly mad at us

Did you see the video of this? He is implying much more. He is implying that the 9/11 attacks were justified due to the evil actions of white America.

Interestingly, Jerry Falwell said something quite similar.

I'm not sure why this is interesting to you. Falwell is equally ridiculous.

Good point.

####, I guess I have to vote for Nader.

 

[adonis]

If he can overcome this, he deserves to be president. Geez, I really dislike his pastor. Wonder if he's blaming america, or if he takes responsibility for screwing up Obama's campaign. What a #######' moron.

I think I'm taking a break for a bit from all the news, too sad. Like piranhas the media are.

ETA: I dislike his pastor because he single handedly has created the biggest problem for Obama's campaign, and single handedly has placed a huge hurdle before Obama becoming president. Also, he has jeopardized his church's status as a tax exempt institution. The message regarding Hillary never being called a N***$#, is also divisive and not a message I believe that should be coming from a preacher. It helps keep black america and white america divided, saying that a white woman can't help black people because she doesn't understand black people. It helps keep that gap between whites and blacks open, and at this time in our history, we need to be drawn together much more than we need to be reminded of how different we are and told how little we have in common. I expect much more than that from a man of God.

So, my comments here are directed at him as someone who likely supported Obama's campaign, who has done the most harm to it. As someone who supported his church, but has likely done a lot of harm to it by becoming politically involved while the preacher. And as someone who should be spreading messages of love and peace and acceptance instead of fueling the flames of racial division and dissimilarity among and between races.

What bothers me at the root is that Obama was associated with this guy for so long. I understand his reasoning, and maybe he didnt' hear anything so politically provocative on the stump, but honestly, can someone who seems this angry, maybe for legitimate reasons, be an inspiration to Obama, someone whose morals and views I highly regard? It's very frustrating.

Don't read this as me losing my faith in Obama...it's not that at all. I still give him totally the benefit of the doubt, and believe he's the best person for our country. In fact, the events of hte last week, regarding the economy, and everything else going on, reminds me strongly that we need someone with Obama's vision as president. I'm just disappointed in his choice of pastors. I may come to understand it to some degree, but I really wish that he never had this baggage to take with him on the campaign trail. It's unnecessary, and it seems like a man like Obama would take his spiritual guidance from someone a little less radical than his pastor seems to be.

 

[urbanhack]

I saw this on CNN last night. I don't always agree with David Gergen, but I thought he made an interesting point with this....

GERGEN: I hope, in the next segment, we can come back to understanding that there's a discourse, there's a conversation in the black community....There has been for a long time, which is different from what is in the white community. And we ought to understand and appreciate the differences ... and not expect everybody to be just the same in this country.

(commercial break)

COOPER: ....David Gergen brought up an interesting point.... about the African-American experience, the African-American experience in church versus white American experience in church and the tradition. Different traditions.

Is there -- is there something that -- I mean, white people looking at this interpret differently -- you can't generalize like this, but that African-Americans looking at this may see it differently or hear things differently than white Americans listening to this?

COOPER: David, you brought this up. Why do you think that's an important point?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, because there's a long tradition, Anderson. And among black leaders to have a different view of American history, going all the way back to Frederick Douglass, who was one of the greatest American heroes of the 19th century, you know, who -- who gained his freedom from slavery in a great order.

He was invited the a July 4th celebration to give a July 4th speech in 1852, and he showed up and said, "You know, you whites see July 4 very differently from what I see it. This is not a day of celebration for us."

And I have found that in my classroom with black students frequently. When they speak their minds and when they speak their hearts, they have a very different view. I've had a young woman tell me, "July 4, we still can't celebrate it in my family, because of what's happened to us."

And I think that we as whites have to be understanding and empathic toward that and try to understand that, that people who are African-Americans legitimately have a different perspective on what American history has meant and take that into account as we hear this.

And it's not a lack of patriotism. It is a different form of patriotism. Actually, Reverend Wright may love this country more than any of us but feel we've fallen short of what we preach and believe.

Link to complete transcript.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

I saw this on CNN last night. I don't always agree with David Gergen, but I thought he made an interesting point with this....

GERGEN: I hope, in the next segment, we can come back to understanding that there's a discourse, there's a conversation in the black community....There has been for a long time, which is different from what is in the white community. And we ought to understand and appreciate the differences ... and not expect everybody to be just the same in this country.

(commercial break)

COOPER: ....David Gergen brought up an interesting point.... about the African-American experience, the African-American experience in church versus white American experience in church and the tradition. Different traditions.

Is there -- is there something that -- I mean, white people looking at this interpret differently -- you can't generalize like this, but that African-Americans looking at this may see it differently or hear things differently than white Americans listening to this?

COOPER: David, you brought this up. Why do you think that's an important point?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, because there's a long tradition, Anderson. And among black leaders to have a different view of American history, going all the way back to Frederick Douglass, who was one of the greatest American heroes of the 19th century, you know, who -- who gained his freedom from slavery in a great order.

He was invited the a July 4th celebration to give a July 4th speech in 1852, and he showed up and said, "You know, you whites see July 4 very differently from what I see it. This is not a day of celebration for us."

And I have found that in my classroom with black students frequently. When they speak their minds and when they speak their hearts, they have a very different view. I've had a young woman tell me, "July 4, we still can't celebrate it in my family, because of what's happened to us."

And I think that we as whites have to be understanding and empathic toward that and try to understand that, that people who are African-Americans legitimately have a different perspective on what American history has meant and take that into account as we hear this.

And it's not a lack of patriotism. It is a different form of patriotism. Actually, Reverend Wright may love this country more than any of us but feel we've fallen short of what we preach and believe.

Link to complete transcript.

Unfortunately, i am realizing yet again that this sort of empathy and understanding is preached by many, but practiced by few. Deep down, much of America is still hard headed, incapable of forming their own opinions, and follow the loudest and most boisterous soap box speakers (Limbaugh et al).

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Pelosi is giving another strong indication that she is behind Obama, although this stops short of a formal endorsement of course. Note that this is from today, so if the party leaders were nervous about the whole Wright deal it isn't apparent here.

Link

WASHINGTON (AP) – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it would be damaging to the Democratic party for its leaders to buck the will of national convention delegates picked in primaries and caucuses, a declaration that gives a boost to Sen. Barack Obama.

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party," Pelosi said in an interview taped Friday for broadcast Sunday on ABC's "This Week."

The California Democrat did not mention either Obama or his rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, by name. But her remarks seemed to suggest she was prepared to cast her ballot at the convention in favor of the candidate who emerges from the primary season with the most pledged delegates.

Obama leads Clinton by 142 pledged delegates — those delegates picked in nomination contests to date, in The Associated Press' count.

Barring an unlikely string of landslide victories by the former first lady in the remaining states, he will end the primary season with a delegate lead, but short of the 2025 needed to win the nomination.

That gives the balance of power to the so-called superdelegates, prominent Democrats who are automatically entitled to attend the convention because of their status as members of Congress or other leaders. Clinton leads Obama for their support in the AP count, 249-213.

Pelosi's comments could influence other House Democrats who are neutral in the presidential race and will attend the convention as superdelegates.

In her interview, Pelosi also said that even if one candidate winds up with a larger share of the popular vote than the delegate leader, the candidate who has more delegates should prevail.

"It's a delegate race," she said. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

More than 500 delegates remain to be picked in primaries beginning on April 22 in Pennsylvania, which has 158 at stake on April 22.

In addition, Democrats in Michigan and Florida are demanding to have their delegations seated, even though they moved up the dates of their primaries to January in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules.

Clinton said Saturday she supports an effort by Michigan Democratic leaders to hold a do-over primary in early June, but the Obama campaign has not yet said whether it will agree. A full delegation would give the state 128 pledged delegates, not counting superdelegates.

In Florida, a plan for a mail-in primary appears doomed, leaving two major possibilities if the state's Democrats are to participate in selecting a nominee.

One is for a full-scale primary.

The other is a negotiated agreement in which Obama and Clinton split the 185 pledged delegates that would have been awarded had the Jan. 29 primary counted.

One prominent official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there have been preliminary discussions among the state's House Democrats to see whether a compromise can be reached along those lines.

Clinton would have won 38 more delegates in the primary than Obama, had the primary results been used to award delegates, according to The Associated Press' calculations. Merely dividing the delegates evenly would leave Obama's delegate lead unchanged.

Obama appeared to open the door to some sort of agreement earlier this week, when he spoke of a procedure "that doesn't advantage one candidate or another too much."

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Unfortunately, i am realizing yet again that this sort of empathy and understanding is preached by many, but practiced by few. Deep down, much of America is still hard headed, incapable of forming their own opinions, and follow the loudest and most boisterous soap box speakers (Limbaugh et al).

Incredibly and unfortunately spot on BK.

 

[adonis]

If he can overcome this, he deserves to be president. Geez, I really dislike his pastor. Wonder if he's blaming america, or if he takes responsibility for screwing up Obama's campaign. What a #######' moron.I think I'm taking a break for a bit from all the news, too sad. Like piranhas the media are.ETA: I dislike his pastor because he single handedly has created the biggest problem for Obama's campaign, and single handedly has placed a huge hurdle before Obama becoming president. Also, he has jeopardized his church's status as a tax exempt institution. The message regarding Hillary never being called a N***$#, is also divisive and not a message I believe that should be coming from a preacher. It helps keep black america and white america divided, saying that a white woman can't help black people because she doesn't understand black people. It helps keep that gap between whites and blacks open, and at this time in our history, we need to be drawn together much more than we need to be reminded of how different we are and told how little we have in common. I expect much more than that from a man of God.So, my comments here are directed at him as someone who likely supported Obama's campaign, who has done the most harm to it. As someone who supported his church, but has likely done a lot of harm to it by becoming politically involved while the preacher. And as someone who should be spreading messages of love and peace and acceptance instead of fueling the flames of racial division and dissimilarity among and between races.What bothers me at the root is that Obama was associated with this guy for so long. I understand his reasoning, and maybe he didnt' hear anything so politically provocative on the stump, but honestly, can someone who seems this angry, maybe for legitimate reasons, be an inspiration to Obama, someone whose morals and views I highly regard? It's very frustrating.Don't read this as me losing my faith in Obama...it's not that at all. I still give him totally the benefit of the doubt, and believe he's the best person for our country. In fact, the events of hte last week, regarding the economy, and everything else going on, reminds me strongly that we need someone with Obama's vision as president. I'm just disappointed in his choice of pastors. I may come to understand it to some degree, but I really wish that he never had this baggage to take with him on the campaign trail. It's unnecessary, and it seems like a man like Obama would take his spiritual guidance from someone a little less radical than his pastor seems to be.

Bump of edited comments, and a question:Is there any indication of how this story has affected his polling numbers?

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Is there any indication of how this story has affected his polling numbers?

LINK to Gallup - Surprisingly, no noticeable dip in the trend. Even Obama v McCain is on par with HRC v McCain in the possible General matchups. ETA: RealClearPolitics has the same trendI found myself in your boat most of today Adonis...really, REALLY angry at this guy for throwing an unnecessary wrench into Obama's campaign. Basically what you wrote...how can someone who's job it is to bring people together use such divisive language?

Obama appears to be on path to correcting this however as he actively taken his stance to the media and through his latest speeches (Indiana i believe). I do like the proactive (g-d i hate that corporate word) approach he is taking about the controversy. He's not hiding from it, or even dodging questions about it. Seems he learned from his "8 questions" stumble a few weeks back.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I found myself in your boat most of today Adonis...really, REALLY angry at this guy for throwing an unnecessary wrench into Obama's campaign. Basically what you wrote...how can someone who's job it is to bring people together use such divisive language?Obama appears to be on path to correcting this however as he actively taken his stance to the media and through his latest speeches (Indiana i believe). I do like the proactive (g-d i hate that corporate word) approach he is taking about the controversy. He's not hiding from it, or even dodging questions about it. Seems he learned from his "8 questions" stumble a few weeks back.

I sent him an email regarding his stupid remarks.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

Ok, i know these polls mean squat. But, right now Rasmussen has McCain +6 over either HRC or Obama in Ohio. As Ohio goes, so goes the GOP, or something like that, right Hill?