The Hot Blog

Anyone who thinks the Wright issue will be "small" come the general is deluding themselves.

*themself

No doubt there are certain individuals already salivating at the thought of the attack ads that will run against Obama in the general.

Don't they already have some in circulation, like the one that McCain staffer passed along?

Anyone who thinks Obama has a target on his back 1/10th the size of Clinton's is... what was your word... deluded.

My favorite story of the day is the Clinton camp using the republican party guy's comment that Obama is vulnerable to attack as a positive for her. Duh! The Republicans would clearly prefer to run against Hillary on every level.

The right cares about Wright. Racists care about Wright. (That is not to say that everyone who cares about Wright is a racist.) People who don't like change or debate care about Wright.

None of those people are voting for Obama or Clinton anyway.

Are you saying Obama's target is larger or smaller than Clinton's? Anyway, I think you are underestimating the ease with which the political discourse can be hijacked by non-stories. Obviously, you think Clinton would attract the more scurrilous attack ads from the Elephants. I was just wondering about that myself. So I ask the rest of the readership: which Donkey would attract the viler, more vicious ads, Obama or Clinton?

"People who don't like change or debate care about Wright."

I don't see the media going away anytime soon. Ergo, Wright will be a story.

One element is, the media likes Obama more than they like Clinton. If she's the candidate, they have a decade and a half of material about her to rehash, from Whitewater and Vince Foster to the present day. And her negatives are still higher than McCain's or Obama's.

"People who don't like change or debate care about Wright."

So, wait, people who don't like debate would rather debate Wright than sweep on past it? Ok.

This site is getting more embarrassing than Wells's. Well, almost.

The Wright junk is white noise at this point. His polling number have already overcome them, and have in face boosted his numbers.

So, hell, make it a big issue in the general. It'll only be a plus for him.

Spinning away covering from Sniper Fire, though? A losing prospect by the latest Gallup tracking.

Cognitive dissonance is going into overdrive for Hillary supporters, as they now know she won't be the nominee, despite her pounding it into their heads as otherwise.

Blackcloud, I suspect that the ads that would be made about Obama could be uglier than those made about Clinton. However, I think they would also be more likely to trigger a backlash against the Republicans than anti-Clinton ads.

You can say anything vile you want about Hillary Clinton, true or not, and half the country will be eager to believe you. That's not entirely her fault, but it's still a strike against her.

Josh, it's easy to make snarky little comments, but I for one am waiting for you to say something constructive or informative about the current race. Please, go ahead and tell me why a third Bush term is a good idea for this country.

Yes, the right cares about Wright. And you know what? If Obama was the REPUBLICAN frontrunner, the right would still care about Wright. So perhaps the left's defense/indifference says more about THEIR principles, or the lack thereof, than the right's.

Well for one thing, Bush isn't running for a 3rd term, so whether it'd be good for the country or not is irrelevant.

Secondly, McCain is the least in-step with Bush that Republicans (non-Chaffee division) can offer. So trying to claim that McCain 1 will be exactly the same as Bush 3 just won't fly.

Sorry SaveFarris, but I disagree with you on that. mysteryperfecta, you think the Wright issue is that big of a deal? Are you concerned about the crazy pastor's in McCain's camp (there's more than one) then? Would you not vote for McCain because of the beliefs of the nutty "spiritual advisers" he has?

By the time the general comes around the Wright story is going to seem like old and finished news. Plus, McCain has a few skeletons in that same closet.

Whatever happened to the news stories about Clinton being part of some creepy beltway Bible group called "The Family"? That had a lot of buzz for about 30 minutes and then nothing.

'mysteryperfecta, you think the Wright issue is that big of a deal?"

As I've articulated in other posts, I don't consider Obama and Wright to be in the same ideological boat. But I do think its an issue. D-Po and Matson are clearly characterizing it as a non-issue.

"Are you concerned about the crazy pastor's in McCain's camp (there's more than one) then? Would you not vote for McCain because of the beliefs of the nutty "spiritual advisers" he has?"

First of all, I don't consider Wright (or Hagee and Parsley, whom you're obviously referring to) to be 'crazy' or 'nutty'. Wright is just dead wrong.

As for Hagee and Parsley, the comparison to Wright is not apples-to-apples. The anti-semetic charge leveled against Hagee is ludicrous. As for the other assertions against the two, some are reasonable, and some are tenuous, at best. What is key is that neither pastor anything approaching the relationship that Obama has with Wright.

It seems pretty clear to me that both Hagee and Parsley are lunatics. I just don't buy the argument that because they haven't known McCain as long, his relationship with them isn't as big an issue. The fact is they have a relationship with him now, and not much is being written about it. I guess people expect Republicans to be associated with insane pastors these days, so it isn't news.

Wow, the last sentence of my previous post is a work of art. How's this:

'The key is, neither paster has anything approaching the relationship that Obama has with Wright.'

That's a little better.

"It seems pretty clear to me that both Hagee and Parsley are lunatics."

That's about the breadth and depth of the arguments I've seen leveled against those pasters.

"I just don't buy the argument that because they haven't known McCain as long, his relationship with them isn't as big an issue."

That's just ridiculous. The nature of their relationship is second in importance only to Wright's statements. If Obama had a relatively new, superficial relationship with Wright, then it wouldn't warrant much discussion.

And you keep bringing up Hagee and Parley. By your own standard, do they even warrant a mention?

Does it matter to you that Wright was in the Marines and Navy? Do you think a few YouTube clips of speeches he has given encompasses the man's entire career as a pastor? I like what Tavis Smiley has said about the Wright issue as well. He quotes Frederick Douglass, saying that "a true patriot is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." He also compares Wright to MLK and says that King said similar things, but we don't attack him for it (specifically what King said about Vietnam; "America is the biggest perpetrator of violence in the world").

You honestly don't think that Hagee and Parsley are pretty out there? What I'm saying is if Wright is an issue, then those two guys should be an issue as well. I strongly believe that you are making a bigger deal out of Wright than it actually is. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

The righties are clamping onto the Wright issue like junkyard dogs with a frayed bone. And the reason McCain and Huckabee have not joined in the attack chorus is because they knew they have stood very close to more intolerant and yes, more foolish religious folk. How do you defend Hagee blaming Katrina on gays, which he certainly did:

"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Now that is certifiable and is far removed from Wright noting the political connections between world events that led to 9/11.

Again, this is why the founding fathers wanted the state seperate from the church.

I remember hearing about that Hagee quote Christian. Thank you for posting it. Like I said, a lunatic. How someone could say otherwise boggles the mind.

wait a second, stella, are you saying that wright should be compared to douglass and king? that seems to me to be taking things waaaay to far in the other direction. wright may not be a racist, but he is certainly not a revolutionary either.

I did not and am not saying that Wright is a revolutionary.

then can we agree that wright's actions and words do not put him in the company of king and douglass?

If it makes you feel better hendhogan and is that big of a deal to you, sure.

yes, it is. it should be to all people. to make the comparison makes what wright said somehow okay. it equates the speeches. in my mind, it demeans the words of mr. king and mr. douglass. lessens them.

The 2008 Presidential election could not be more clear -- if you want more of same from the past eight years then keep the Republicans in the White House. If you've finally had enough then vote for whichever Democrat wins the nomination. Now, if America chooses ONE MORE time to keep the Republicans in the White House after everything they've done (& continue to do) during the Bush Administration (& McCain willfully supported the Bush Administration. He is ONE OF THEM), then one cannot help but agree with one of the out of context comments by the Reverend Wright and think, god damn America.

sure, i agree, if one is crazy enough to contend that it is an us versus them vote, then wright comes off as perfectly reasonable.

your platform is, of course, a given. everyone knows that anyone in either party automatically thinks like all the rest in the party.

I'm curious if there's anyone who's riled up by the Wright situation who wasn't already looking for reasons to doubt/mistrust Obama. That's the subtext here - to say 'look, he's not the mild-mannered gentleman he makes himself out to be, because deep inside, he cavorts with someone worse than Al Sharpton' which is of course many peoples' worst nightmare - the Angry Black Man.

Nobody gave Huckabee this much trouble when he said he didn't believe in evolution, which I would say makes him much more unsuited for a high office.

i don't agree with what would appear to be the widely used term 'racist' in the media or just general discussion in regards to wright's comments; doesn't racism by definition imply a superiority complex of one race over another? wright isn't a racist, he's a reactionary - or whatever the term is for someone whose taken a lot of shit in his life and then goes a bit off the deep end in speaking out about racial injustice. he's a bit of a nutjob, but that quote about gays and katrina by that other preacher is every bit as bad and is born of hatred and ignorance, not in reaction to racial injustice.

isn't it all about context? white racism against blacks has been around for so long, it's just treated with a 'sigh, just one of those things' attitude (how long has the kkk been a legitimate, legal organisation now?), where as the black backlash is deemed dangerous and intolerable... double standards.

talk about strawmen, jeff.

leahnz, i disagree that racism white on black is dismissed with a sigh and black backlash is deemed dangerous. i would argue the converse is true more often than not. however, that defeats my point, which is that it's all bad. and none of it should be accepted, regardless of who is doing it. making excuses for one side is part of the problem, not the solution.

i'm not making excuses or justifications, i'm putting it into context.

you're saying 'i'ts all bad and none of it should be accepted and one is as bad as the other', and yet why hasn't that outrageous quote by hagee that christian posted been jumped on by the (white) media, (and if your don't think america's media is run by white men then i don't know what to say to you), when it is in fact ten times worse, because i'd venture to bet hagee's never been unable to vote, get a cab, or get a job, or live where he likes because those opressive gays just won't allow it...white man's' bigotry is far more tolerated in society. wright is a product of his environment, having been 'less than' all his life. so what's hagee's excuse? it's not all the same, regardless. history. context.

Hendhogan: how so?

I think the important thing about the whole discussion is that it reveals the split between black and white America. I don't have a problem with Hagee saying 'God damn America' because in historical context, African-Americans have experienced both the best and the worst of what America has had to offer. On the other hand, the stuff he's had to say about HIV and the CIA is just plain ignorant, but I don't see that as being central to the Wright discussion.

jeff, you meant wright, right? right.

certainly some of the stuff wright has said is deplorable and just plain doolally, but as a person whose mother was arrested many a time marching for civil rights, i grew up with that mindset in the household and as much as i may not agree with his sentiments, i can still see where he's coming from; i do NOT see where hagee and his ilk are coming from, they have no historical reason to be be resentful and yet they spread hate and fear, and the fact that the evangelical white preachers are not being put under the same scutiny as the militant black one speaks volumes to me.

From The Complete Political Cartoonist's Handbook:

1) Keep track of the most popular movies/TV shows at any given moment (use the Internets, or just ask the guys in the Arts & Entertainment section)

2) Do a quick'n'dirty pastiche using the title and any plot information that can be gleaned from the publicity materials -- if all else fails, just redraw the poster art

3) Shoehorn in whatever reductionist political commentary comes to mind while leafing through last week's front pages -- avoid anything that would take more than one sentence to express in words (Optional: put labels on everyone and everything to make sure the point cannot possibly be missed)

4) Await call from the Pulitzer board

Oh yeah, Wright. Whoops!

But yeah, you said it.

jeff, you start with a postulate "i wonder if..." on something that of course someone has wondered about. strawman. then you bring up huckabee that no one on the right took seriously. strawman.

leahnz, what you are saying is that "crazy" (let's use that word unless someone objects) talk can be justified by history and context. i think "crazy" talk can't be justified. there's always someone on the opposite side of your argument (not me) that will use those comments to justify their own "crazy" talk.

if you want me to publicly state that hagee is talking "crazy," done. he's talking "crazy."

the reason i think wright is more of a story is because the response to obama's lack of experience is that he will surround himself with good people. is wright an example of what is meant? if so, that concerns me. on the other hand, the speech writer that wrote that speech impresses me (not by what it says, but how it effected people and allowed obama to do what he wanted to do, which was not cut wright off)

If no one on the right took Huckabee seriously, how did he end up doing better than expected in the primaries? I don't think Obama was planning on giving Wright a spot in his cabinet.

why does ralph nader keep getting votes? if i were a conspiracy nut, i'd say the left was really anxious for him to be the republican candidate (like some have accused the right for wanting clinton).

it's not so much the man as the decision making process that becomes questionable. some are willing to overlook it. okay. but don't turn around and tell me i'm nuts for having the questions.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: