Clinton: Obama's "Choice" Was Wright

"He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is saying, made the choice to attend Trinity; he made the choice to stay at Trinity after Wright's remarks' and that's not the choice that Clinton would have made. (BTW: "don't choose your family" -- is that some sort of an allusion to her husband?)

More, from an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune and Gazette:

You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."

Make no mistake: Wright is now fair game for Clinton herself.

Comments

This ain't '92, Hillary. Your effort to racebait by way of Sister Souljharing won't work. Keep on ducking that gunfire!

Posted by Paleo | March 25, 2008 1:47 PM

Pretty dangerous territory for Hillary. She's risking what little black support she already has to appeal to blue collar PA voters. She must feel like she can mend fences later if she wins the nomination.

Posted by Gus | March 25, 2008 1:48 PM

Wow.

First off that was an excellent way to insure everyone plays the tape of Wright all over again and legitimizes the argument the right was making against Obama and that he neutralized to some extent.

Great way to create a headache for the campaign after their vacation,lol.

I honestly believe that this woman is destroying the democratic partry. And going this route is practically guarenteeing that the superdelegates won't be able to overturn Obama's pledged delegate lead without losing the African American vote. And if Clinton is poisioning the well for Obama in the general I can't fathom how that will help her in 2012.

The only silver linning I can see is that Obama was going to have to come out infront of this in the general; she's forcing them to think about this seriously now.

I guess whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

But the more this stuff happens; the easier it is to see a President McCain come the fall.

Posted by Rhoda | March 25, 2008 1:50 PM

Did you see Hardball last night? They threw up a graphic with 4 choices for Hillary, asking which were her best and second best... it essentially went:

1) Hillary wins Nom; Wins Prez
2) Obama wins Nom; McCain Prez
3) Obama wins Nom; Obama Prez
4) Hillary wins Nom; McCain Prez

Obviously, #1 is her best case scenario, but according to Brooks, has about a 5% likelyhood at this point. One has to wonder then, why the extreme negativity. I thought she liked Barack.

Honestly, she's angling for 2012... she knows she's losing and doesn't have a chance to win, and while she's still relevant, she's trying to hurt Obama as much as possible. #3 is the absolute worst case scenario because it could forever relegate her to the dustbin of history as an Also-Ran, so she's clearly now hell-bent on #2...

When she drops out, don't expect Kind words for Obama
When she drops out, expect her surrogates to give oppo to McCain...

She's now reading her run in 2012... and that means Obama's imminent Defeat this year, if not her, then to McCain.

Posted by Steven R | March 25, 2008 1:51 PM

Meanwhile, the latest poll from North Carolina shows Obama improving by 20 POINTS (!) in the past two weeks.

Posted by Daniel | March 25, 2008 1:54 PM

Memo to Hillary:

You do choose your HUSBAND.

Posted by lampwick | March 25, 2008 1:54 PM

OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:

HILLARY CLINTON HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT HER NEW CAMPAIGN MANAGER IS JON BON JOVI

Shot down in a blaze of glory
Take me now but know the truth
'Cause I'm going down in a blaze of glory
Lord I never drew first
But I drew first blood
I'm the devil's son
Call me young gun

Posted by Craig | March 25, 2008 1:56 PM

I guess whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Pace Nietzsche, this is not actually true.

I can't believe she's doing this. Unlike some, I don't really think this is all about trying to get Obama to lose the general so she can run in 2012. I think they still think they can win this year. But this stuff is crazy, and makes me begin to doubt it.

Her whole argument is that she has a better chance to win Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania than Obama. Does she really think that any Democrat can win any of those states without a good African American turnout? Does she really think that demagoguing the African American church and then getting white superdelegates to take the nomination away from a black candidate with the most pledged delegates and (probably) the most votes, she is going to get a good black turnout in those states? The states she claims to be more electable in are exactly the states where she'll be crippled if she succeeds in this race-baiting strategy for the nomination.

Jesus Christ, it just gets worse and worse.

Posted by John | March 25, 2008 1:58 PM

I don't particularly think it was wise for Clinton to engage on this front because it really fraught with peril. Still, that said, her comment is fair and doesn't constitute anything not said and felt by millions of other people. Also, Marc, you really should be noting that Clinton was responding to a direct question from a reporter on the issue -- she didn't bring it up on her own.

Posted by dry_fish | March 25, 2008 2:01 PM

Obama seems to have recovered with whites in NC:

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-nc-poll-suggests-obamas-speech.html

Is this why she is raising the Wright controversy?

Posted by M.A.B. | March 25, 2008 2:05 PM

BTW: "don't choose your family" -- is that some sort of an allusion to her husband?

Wow. I guess you suffer from Clinton Derangement Syndrome as well. Hint: if she ever offers to buy you a drink, it's not because she's trying to poison you.

Anyway, to answer your question: it's a reference to Obama's notorious grandmother reference in his speech.

Posted by dry_fish | March 25, 2008 2:06 PM

lampwick, Did you choose your spouse the way you chose your pastor?

Does your spouse know that?

Posted by Tom | March 25, 2008 2:08 PM

I must say I agree with Lampwick. It does show how much cognitive dissonance there sometimes is with the Clintons. The gall!

Hillary not only chose Bill, but chose to stick with him!

Now say what you will - but I'm sure she really does not want to go there.

The longer her campaign keeps this up, the more she damages even her chance to become Majority Leader, let alone her chance to run again in 2012 even if Obama loses in November.

P.S: Would like to note that if Hillary stills pulls this off (I doubt she will), I will not only vote for her in November, but I will volunteer for her, put her bumper sticker on my car etc. I would prefer Obama, but for the next 4 years any Democrat will do.

Posted by DJ | March 25, 2008 2:09 PM

You tell it as it is, Mrs Clinton, We are with you all the way.

Exactly - You cannot choose your family but can choose your friends, pastor, grocery store etc.

The Lying Hypocrite BHO

Posted by Indus | March 25, 2008 2:15 PM

She didn't speak out against Ferraro's statements a few days ago.

Posted by Cheryl | March 25, 2008 2:17 PM

What fundamentally gets me is that if she was responding to a question she could easily have done what Sen. McCain did dry_fish and simply say how she knows Barack Obama and those are not his views.

It would have done her a world of good among AA democratic voters and bought her a host of free publicity and ALSO served to bring up the Wright issue without pissing anyone off and given Fox the excuse to run the tape again and ask their viewers if they agree with her or not.

But she didn't.

She sought to blow smoke on dying embers hoping to bring the fire back; and in the end this does help Barack Obama in two ways. (1) He'll need to do something to directly acknowledge the issue and (2) it'll give him the chance to go big again if this blows up.

And it destroys her with the superdelegates and burns bridges with AA voters IMO.

She could have done this smart; that she didn't is a testement to why she is in this position in the first place.

Posted by Rhoda | March 25, 2008 2:18 PM

The obvious point that comes to my mind is of course a black preacher from a predominantly black church would not have been Clinton's choice.

Obama has written extensively in his book about why he chose Trinity. Also, many of the Wright statements that are so controversial happened long after Obama had been a member.

Also...you can't choose the people you LOVE is more of what Obama was saying. Preacher, friend, family or otherwise, we often endear ourselves to people who are deeply flawed, but love them anyway.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Unbelievable.

Just kidding, I believe it. I don't believe that she's going for 2012, I just think that her campaign has lost grounding in reality, and that she's come to believe the bullshit about how the Clintons have come out of tight spots before, and how she can do it again, and that she just has to win the primary and worry about the rest later.

In short, I see no evidence of any grand plan from the Clintons, just a lot of stupid desperate acts from people who have recently become aware of just how impossible their chances have become. The Clintons are becoming vindictive.

Posted by Lev | March 25, 2008 2:19 PM

I think Rhonda is right -- there was an opportunity here to play on the high ground and she showed no interest.

Mike Huckabee was asked about Wright and he did 1000 times better than HRC. Last I checked, he was a Republican.

Posted by Enough | March 25, 2008 2:22 PM

This is a clear indication that the Wright story did not hurt Obama all that much. If he were down in the polls now and Hillary felt good about her chances in Pennsylvania and beyond, she would not be mentioning it.

And she's trying to take heat off herself for her Bosnia fibs.

Posted by Suze | March 25, 2008 2:23 PM

Suzy, I think you've nailed it. Good call.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 2:25 PM

Bill Clinton had a choice. He picked Monica Lewinsky over Osama Bin Laden.

Posted by kravitz | March 25, 2008 2:30 PM

She really is desperate to get the 4 Pinocchios for Bosnia off the radar.

I hope the press will take this as carte blanche to go after every religious associate she has had in the past 35 years and everything they ever said. She's declared it relevant.

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 2:31 PM

"Obama Urges Bernanke, Paulson to Fight Foreclosures, Hold Homeownership Summit"

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070322-obama_urges_ber/

Looks like Obama is trying to copy Clinton in advocating a "panel" to solve the mortage and foreclosure crisis.

Hold on...the memo is dated...March 22...2007!!

He was ahead of the game? Again?

Damn you Obama!!! Why do you make it so hard to hate you?!

Posted by DJ | March 25, 2008 2:33 PM

Odd also, now that I think about it...her mention of "The Family," that odd collective she belongs to.
"You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as “The “Fellowship,” also known as The Family. But it won’t be a secret much longer. Jeff Sharlet’s shocking exposé The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power will be published in May." Barbara Ehrenreich also did a story on Hillary and "The Family" at HuffPp.

Posted by kravitz | March 25, 2008 2:36 PM

This is a really bad move on her part. She's taking up Fox network's talking points on Obama. How on earth can she expect to get the party united behind her in November if she somehow gets the nomination?

From now on, the ONLY way the democrats can nominate Hillary is by openly declaring that they approve of the low road on the race question in America. And if this is clearly seen, they lose the African-American base and a good chunk of the younger generation. Permanently.

Posted by Maggie | March 25, 2008 2:37 PM

Rhoda -- I don't disagree that this will not endear her to Obama supporters and African-Americans who feel that the outrage over Wright's comments is simply a proxy for the larger society's uncomfortableness with all but the most vanilla black political thought.

Further, I think that on a human and non-political level she just needs to be sensitive to the fact that there are honest, non-histrionic-Obama-supporting folks who are watching her actions and leaning to the conclusion that she's made the decision to sacrifice black votes for those of somewhat more conservative whites. I think her commitment to racial equality and social justice are real and, on a human non-political level, she doesn't want her legacy in those areas marred by fleeting opportunism.

Still, fundamentally, her comment doesn't go beyond what many non-racist, good-faith people have said on the Wright issue. So, it's in-bounds, but it really does make one regret the campaign has gone in this direction. And she needs to move on to making a positive case for herself. This debate over Wright doesn't have the ability to help her anymore.

Posted by dry_fish | March 25, 2008 2:39 PM

It's so obvious that all of the previous posts in this comment string are by one or two persons using sockpuppets!

Way to go, Hill. Don't be intimidated into not raising legitimate issues. This is a big concern for the general election and you are correct to raise it. All's fair in love, war, and politics.

She feels this was hate speech. So will many Americans once they hear about it through various 527 advertisements.

Posted by sbj | March 25, 2008 2:43 PM

So would Clinton say that it's okay to discriminate against people on the basis of religion? After all, people choose their religion, don't they?

Posted by cj | March 25, 2008 2:47 PM

There are two problems with what Hillary said.

1. The first it assumes that Wright was preaching the way it was shown in those couple edited, out of context clips for 20 years. There is no evidence to support this.

2. The second is that there was no hate speech or racist speech in any of Wright's comments.

Posted by john m | March 25, 2008 2:51 PM

These comments are just opening Hillary up to criticism for her own family values as well as for some more coverage of her own religious connections to the "Family".

Posted by Eileen | March 25, 2008 2:51 PM

McCain and Huckabee showed more class and dignity with this question than Senator Clinton did. This is very disappointing. Negative campaigning does not equal strength in my book.

Senator Obama has shown strength of character and good judgment in his campaign with his words. When you stick to the high road, you don't have to apologize for "misspeaking" so much.

Posted by Beth in VA | March 25, 2008 2:55 PM

To Clinton supporters:

Obama's reference to his white grandmother is only "notorious" to small-minded bigots. When you whine about how he "threw her under the bus" it looks to many of us like you doth protest too much. That faux lament is really for yourself (see: Chris Hitchens). Grow up.

This is a nuclear move by the Clintons that depends heavily on what are euphemestically called "low information voters." But what happens when these voters start to get some actual information? They switch to Obama.

Let's see what the PA polls look like after he spend a week campaigning there. Since he's now within 10 points as of today, I bet he'll cut that in half.

Posted by BillB | March 25, 2008 2:55 PM

The choice is extremely clear: you can have a serial liar, with an addiction to Karl Rove tactics, someone who has proven her incompetence time after time, or you can have a candidate with foresight, judgment and courage. The Hillary supporters had better understand this: your candidate has disgraced virtually every principle that Democrats care about, and if you think she has a prayer now, or in 2012, I suggest you increase your medication.

Posted by johnedwards | March 25, 2008 2:59 PM

This is just sleazy. She is officially not a democrat anymore, as far I'm concerned.

Posted by alex | March 25, 2008 3:00 PM

Just so we're clear, HRC is saying that because Obama went to Wright's church, people shouldn't vote for him. It doesn't matter what Obama actually believes or what else Wright may have done or said - Obama, by associating with the person who made those incendiary remarks, has put himself out of bounds.

There's no reason to vote for Clinton here - only a reason to vote against Obama.

But of course, we're assured by Clinton partisans, this scorched-earth policy can't possibly hurt us in the general.

Right.

Posted by TedL | March 25, 2008 3:01 PM

I heard a rumour that Clinton is going to be filling in for Hannity next week while he is on vacation. Any truth to that?

Posted by philly dog | March 25, 2008 3:15 PM

For those who wish to have a serious discussion, check out the full sermons before pronouncing judgement.

I definitely do not like some of Wright's style, and his specific personal bashing and conspiracy paranoia is something I have heard before and hope eventually works its way out of black community. Wright and the old guard don't help in that regard. However, the most offensive sermons regarding 9/11 and GD America have been taken entirely out of context and have little relation to what he was actually trying to say.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO

Posted by Courtney H | March 25, 2008 3:15 PM

You know, dry_fish, I don't think Clinton is a racist or what she said was out of bounds.

I just think she is fundamentally hurting this party and while the Obama campaign has been fighting hard and hasn't hesitated to stick a shiv in her campaign; they haven't crossed the lines to activly help the other side IMO.

She has done that before and she just did it again.

If she honestly believes Barack Obama harbors views that should exclude him from the presidency it's one thing; but knowing he doesn't and just working this gotcha is not fair IMO. Especially knowing he may become the nominee.

I'm not especially worried because the Obama camp is supposed to lose Pennsylvania and there are four weeks to clean this up and deal with his issues. And obviously, he has issues too. But in her comments at the very least, given the outcry she's witnessed on the campaign trail, she is ceding the African American vote and I don't see how she can win in 2008 if she succeds in gaining the nomination without it.

Barack Obama doesn't have to campaign hard for her; he has to make a show yes. But campaign hard, no.

And up and choosing Harold Ford or the like for a running mate isn't going to solve her issues with the AA community or the youth vote that's come out for Obama.

Posted by Rhoda | March 25, 2008 3:17 PM

HRC officially has no class. I respect Huckabee much more than here.

Posted by BR | March 25, 2008 3:18 PM

I agree on Huckabee. He is the only politician, other than Richardson to say something worthwhile and intelligent about this entire thing since the speech was made last Tuesday. Obama wanted to raise the bar and speak about this on an adult level. Too bad Clinton did not take him up on that offer.

Posted by philly dog | March 25, 2008 3:23 PM

I still don't get why anyone is surprised by any act of naked political opportunism from either Clinton. All this righteous indignation is funny. It's more important to point out the opportunism itself than argue with the content of it. This is about saying-anything-to-get-elected and the Clintons' willingness to trash their own party. That's the point to drive home here.

Posted by nepat | March 25, 2008 3:26 PM

FWIW, she is still spinning her Bosnia lie - her claim in that same interview was that she was sleep-deprived, and misspoke.

She must have been sleep-deprived in late December, too; from Newsday:

Hillary says she risked life on White House trips

Glenn Thrush

VINTON, Iowa - Ever since Barack Obama suggested Hillary Clinton's eight years as first lady were a glorified tea party a few days back, she's looked for an opening to strike back.

On Saturday night in Dubuque she pounced, arguing she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers.

"I don't remember anyone offering me tea," she quipped.

The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."

I don't know how well the press is doing in busting her on this - the Times only reported a "misstatement" from Feb 29.

Posted by Tom Maguire | March 25, 2008 3:26 PM

"You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

So he's supposed to pick up and join a different denomination, just like that? I know this is unkind of me, but anyone who thinks it's that simple really hasn't thought very deeply about their own faith. Hillary's coming across as excessively shallow on this one.

Posted by Tel | March 25, 2008 3:28 PM

Surely Hillary Clinton can't believe that making comments like this will endear her to the superdelegates . . . can she? Either she's completely lost it and thinks she can still sway the superdelegates and become the nominee, then somehow convince black voters it was all just a joke sometime before they vote in November; or she is simply so ridiculously angry with Obama for having the gall to earn the nomination to which she felt "entitled" that she's willing to do anything to take him down. At first I thought she was trying to weaken him in furtherance of her own 2012 strategy. But the way she's going, there's no way she'll win then, either. So now I've concluded that she's terribly angry (which I also gathered is the case for Carville, who seems stupidly angry at Richardson). Otherwise, I don't get it.

No, this is not out of bounds. But it really doesn't help her case and it's terrible for the party as a whole, which destroys her own possibilities for the future. Interesting, in a scary sort of way.

Posted by Amy | March 25, 2008 3:29 PM

Hillary is flailing around. She knows the Bosnia fibbing sets her reputation from here on out and that more of her bogus claims of experience will get attention by the TV news folk.

Posted by Helter | March 25, 2008 3:29 PM

Who cares what the "Heroine of Tuzla" has to say on anything? Zero credibility.

Posted by lifelong democrat | March 25, 2008 3:32 PM

I know this much. The Bosnia issue has set her in a really bad position. Now she will no longer get the benefit of the doubt on any experience related statement she makes. People will want proof that she actually did what she claimed. And honestly, haven't we already had enough of a President who couldn't be trusted?

Posted by Daniel | March 25, 2008 3:53 PM

AKBY

he obvious point that comes to my mind is of course a black preacher from a predominantly black church would not have been Clinton's choice.

That comment just betrays your own profound ignorance. Hillary and Bill Clinton have gone to many predominantly black churches. They attended a predominantly black church in Washington DC right after Bill's first inaugural.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 3:55 PM

According to the logic of Sen. Clinton, the fact that he didn’t walk out means that he must have then supported all of Wright’s statements. Does this mean that any Catholic that did not quit the Church must have then supported child molestation? That’s what these talking points are saying. If you’ve stayed in the church than you are a supporter of pedophilia. It’s exactly the same logic with her saying that if you don’t totally renounce all association or membership, then you are guilty of the same crime.

Sounds to me like an argument that’s just going to cause division and hatred. I can see why its being used on the right-wing’s part to keep in place the “Southern Strategy” that has been so successful for the GOP. But why on Sen.Clinton’s part? If it succeeds in getting her the nomination, the Democratic coalition will be so damaged that she’ll end up losing. I don’t understand it.

Posted by The Other Ed | March 25, 2008 4:06 PM

Dry_fish: I don't disagree that the comment was "in-bounds," but is this really what Hillary believes?

I don't think so.

The common reaction to Hillary is that she doesn't own her Self. Her personality, convictions and viewpoints seem fabricated. She's been "designed" somehow.

There's a measure of this in everyone, and certainly in every politician, but the Clintons seem to embrace the say-whatever-gets-you-elected whole-heartedly; proudly. It's almost a badge of honor.

I don't want people like this running our country. I want someone who reveals their integrity from time-to-time. Otherwise, I will never trust their motivations for anything they say or do.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 4:09 PM

It's not "exactly the same logic" at all. They aren't even slightly comparable situation. If the Pope had been making statements condoning pedophilia or a person stayed in a church with a priest proven to be a pedophile, then it would be comparable. But we're not talking about Obama belonging to church where some other minister, other than his, was making extremist statements. It was his own pastor!

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:12 PM

Carville Defends Imus on CNN
According to a report by Matt Stoller, Mon Apr 09, 2007

Here's how James Carville defended Imus on CNN just now, saying that they've been friends since 1992. After spouting off for about thirty seconds of saying how he really thinks that Imus is genuinely sorry, he gave his real reason for defending Imus.

"I'm a believer that when a friend is in trouble, that's when you run to their aid."

Posted by Voice of Reason | March 25, 2008 4:13 PM

Again, whenever I visit a war zone rife with snipers, I always try to standup straight and remember to wear a yellow scarf. Seriously, it occurred to me that we haven't heard much from Sidney Blumenthal of late. Remember Sidney, long-time friend and senior advisor to presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the man who coined the term “vast right-wing conspiracy?” Sidney blew through Greeley Park at speeds in excess of 70-mph., in a 30-mph. zone (in a quirk of irony maybe that’s why Hillary teared-up and won NH.). Sidney failed to walk the walk. He failed the field sobriety test, got arrested - handcuffed – just like Dee Dee Myers does every so often. Point being, what if Barack Obama's pastor, the Reverend J.A. Wright, had done such a thing? Would Hillary Clinton ever let Barack Obama live it down? Sidney was booked for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated, DWI. And, that was the end of it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 25, 2008 4:14 PM

Tim K:

I wasn't suggesting that the Clinton's have never "been to" a black church. I was just pointing out, with a bit of attempted humor, that a black man from a black church would, of course, not been their pick.

I know they've been supportive of the black community in the past. No one denies this.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 4:15 PM

I don't want people like this running our country. I want someone who reveals their integrity from time-to-time. Otherwise, I will never trust their motivations for anything they say or do.

I'm not sure what's more naive: thinking being a politician is about being forth, honest and always acting with conviction, or thinking Barack Obama is that person.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:16 PM

Hillary just keeps sinking lower and lower...

Please, party elders and super-d's, step in and end this now!

Posted by Ruth | March 25, 2008 4:18 PM

Peggy McGilligan:

What if Bill Clinton had said the first time he was proud of his country was right now?

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:22 PM

I'm not sure what's more naive: thinking being a politician is about being forth, honest and always acting with conviction, or thinking Barack Obama is that person.

How do you know I'm for Obama?

I never think that anyone is "always" being forth, honest and acting with conviction, especially a politician. So I have to have some measuring stick for evaluating their integrity, to some degree.

Clinton, in my opinion, shows the least amount of integrity. This is why I will not vote for her.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 4:23 PM

Barack Obama: The Audacity of Hope

Hillary Clinton: The Chutzpah of Resentment.

Posted by RKA | March 25, 2008 4:27 PM

AKBY:

How do I know you are for Obama? I've read plenty of your comments over the days and weeks and that's certainly the strong impression I have gotten.

As for Obama and integrity I think of what has often been said of used car salesmen: The business is about sincerity, once you can fake that you've got it made. Obama is very good at faking sincerity.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:30 PM

What if Bill Clinton had said the first time he was proud of his country was right now?

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:22 PM

Then I wouldn't believe him because I don't believe much of what comes out of his mouth anyway.

Tim K., I'm really curious to know: Are you a Hillary supporter or a member of her campaign, someone who follows up every single comment criticizing Hillary with a post criticizing the commenter? Or are you a Republican here to create fractiousness amongst Democrats? I'm curious to know because you're all over the place, sometimes indicating you're from Canada (and thus have no say whatsoever in this election), sometimes indicating you're a Republican. It's funny to me that you find the need to respond to everyone's comments, no matter how small or large the criticism.

Posted by Amy | March 25, 2008 4:32 PM

RKA:

Barack Obama: The Audacity.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 4:33 PM

Tim K:

I've read some of your comments as well, and I know you're from Canada, so I'd like to ask who it is that you would vote for? who do think we should vote for?

BTW I'm more against Clinton than I am for Obama, and by the way I haven't made up my mind yet. I just know I am not voting for her.

Posted by AKBY | March 25, 2008 4:35 PM

I think Hillary has sunk to a crappy fetid low

Posted by RKA | March 25, 2008 4:48 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

Hillary has her own issues
The Obama campaign won't go here

but we can

Posted by AMBER | March 25, 2008 4:52 PM

I have a blog entry on this subject at http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com
Excerpt:

"...Until Bosnia, sniper fire and ducked heads. Hillary Clinton's dumb insistence on grandly embellishing her visit to Bosnia bit her in the butt. The media has picked up on the story, splicing together video of her recounting the harrowing ordeal with actual footage of her very peaceful arrival at Tuzla. Embarrassing, to say the least. The story has prompted some closer investigation into Mrs. Clinton's executive experience claims, and it looks like there's more "big fish" tales from Senator Clinton waiting to be investigated more fully: Northern Ireland, Macedonia, SCHIP legislation, Family and Medical Leave Act."

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 25, 2008 5:04 PM

I completely agree that the strategy for Hillary is now to destroy Obama to position herself for 2012 when presumable McCain is too old. I hope people aren't so dumb as to let this happen but then I remember- "people" elected G. W. Bush. She's playing to the Bush constituency right now with "blue collar" Democrats that may unfortunately fall for race-baiting in the same way the "blue collar" Republicans fell for Gay-bashing and self-righteous morality touting patriarchs. If only "not this time" can resonate.

Posted by Joaquin | March 25, 2008 5:08 PM

Hey, that same Pitsburgh Tribune Review has some questions for HRH Hillary Redaction Clinton...about the Riadys.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_558825.html
"• There continues to be much conflicting information about Mrs. Clinton's relationship with the Riady family. Specifically, Clinton dined with Indonesian businessman Mochtar Riady at a 1993 gala honoring her as "Arkansan of the Year." Five days later, The Washington Times reports, Riady's Lippo Group was lobbying the administration to end a 30-year trade embargo with Vietnam. The embargo was lifted 11 months later. A Lippo affiliate, Mr. Riady's son, James, and Lippo executive John Huang later were convicted of serious campaign finance violations. Did you and Mochtar Riady ever discuss the embargo, Sen. Clinton?"

It was also covered some time ago at WSJ. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/20/clinton-schedules-show-riadys-giving-large-donation/?mod=WSJBlog

Oh, btw, the Obamas only gave 1% or less to Trinity, and 6% in the last year. It means the Obamas were not as involved or as invested in Trinity as the media would have hoped. If they had given 10% or more, it could be said, as one might about Mitt Romney, he is deeply connected to his church.

Posted by kravitz | March 25, 2008 5:19 PM

Let me get this straight.

Clinton says she would leave a church where the pastor, as a rule, preaches love, tolerance of your neighbor no matter what the color of his/her skin is, preaches workign to alleviate the plight of the suffering, preaches that people with different sexual lifestyles are to be loved and not shunned, teaches that we must all look to work on our relationship with God and that none of us are pure and above others.

she states she would leave a church where a preacher says something which she doesn't like, and which, quite honestly a lot of America doesn't like but is willing to come forward and say it was a mistake for him to do so and he realizes that he was presuming a role that God did not give him. He doesn't say he misspoke, or that it was a misstatement or that he was tired when he said it. He comes right out and admits to it and states he was wrong to do so.

Gosh, I wonder why she would want to leave that church. Oh, that's right, that is a preacher who admits to being a full time human being, whereas she is one only ocassionally.

Posted by john m | March 25, 2008 5:20 PM

I think what makes these comments so infuriating is that she had taken a pass on this issue up to now. Only when she's in trouble over her pack of lies about Tuzla/Bosnia does she try to stoke the fire on Wright again. Expressed more completely here:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15009.html

I just find it further evidence that she sees her only path to the nomination/presidency to destroy him - not through her own positives.

Posted by mbuchel | March 25, 2008 5:23 PM

"I just find it further evidence that she sees her only path to the nomination/presidency to destroy him - not through her own positives."

And the sad part is she has a lot of positives, even without exaggerating things.

Posted by john m | March 25, 2008 5:27 PM

I have been a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I've had enough. Enough of the Judas, enough of the blatant race-baiting, enough of the kitchen sink. The fact that the Clintons apparently have no regard for the Democratic Party (and its chances in November) if they're not in charge should cause us all to rethink our allegiance. While she is an amazingly tough lady and has been a fantastic senator, she has proven so little regard for our common dialogue and our common good that she has no business being President of the United States.

Posted by JB | March 25, 2008 5:33 PM

Not good enough for her pastor. Apparently, he was good enough to help Bill wipe the stain off of his conscience.

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | March 25, 2008 5:38 PM

Brunhilda's comments were meant to put the issue back in the news because Penn blue collar dems think Wright is a wacky wackateer. It's a winning issue for her and she wants to win Penn by a big margin.

Posted by linda | March 25, 2008 5:39 PM

In short, I see no evidence of any grand plan from the Clintons, just a lot of stupid desperate acts from people who have recently become aware of just how impossible their chances have become.

Hillary definitely does not have the political skills that Bill did. (Note the past tense, because Bill seems to have lost them over the last decade.) All she seems to know is attack or play the victim. (Waaaah! I always get the first question.)

I think the "Bosnia moment" was a chance for Hillary to show us what she's made of, just the way Obama did during his "Rev. Wright moment". Obama gave an excellent speech filled with truths, many that are not politically expedient to utter aloud, that was targeted at adults. Hillary "misspoke" and was tired. I think the contrast says all you need to know about the character of these two candidates.

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 5:55 PM

AKBY - don't get too wrapped up in Tim K.'s breathless histrionics. His preferred candidate can't win on the merits, so the only option for him - and them - is to take down Obama. If Hillary does manage to debase herself into the nomination, she'll have literally no chance in the general. And not because Obama supporters won't vote for her, but because, in the process of sliming any and all in her way, she's lost the rationale for her candidacy and many of the constituencies on which it was based. It's unlikely that a majority of African Americans will ever return, and she can't tip the scales without them.

And don't worry too much about the Wright issue. Obama continues to yield positive momentum from his speech in all kinds of strange quarters (e.g. http://www.slate.com//blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx and http://pomoco.typepad.com/postmodern_conservative/2008/03/republicans-for.html). This is real and it will continue.

Bill Burton's measured response from the Obama campaign to Hillary's latest theatrics is a good sign. On the heels of her technicolor fabrication about the Bosnia trip, a clearer picture of Hillary is beginning to, finally, emerge.

Posted by nepat | March 25, 2008 6:08 PM

Let's take a moment to review Hillary's "choice" of who she worships with...

I just read the Mother Jones article about her "secretive" prayer group called The Fellowship. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

From the article: "The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan." Reeks of Dominionism.

Led by spiritual advisor to the Washington stars Doug Coe, "The Fellowship" is sex-segrated, and the people who share her belief in waging "spiritual war on behalf of Christ" are none other than "former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay."

The beliefs of this crowd makes Rev. Wright sound sane (although I never had any issues with Wright's comments) and are neatly aligned with McCain "spiritual advisor" Parsley and Hagee.

What about this "choice" Hillary? Can you explain why you pray with this bunch? I'd like to know if this is why she voted for the Iraq war - was she on the same 3AM call with God as Bush and the right-wing Republican theocrats?

Posted by SMN | March 25, 2008 8:43 PM

AKBY:

Sorry I took so long to reply.

Well I'd vote for Clinton. The thing that is different in Canada is we don't tend to elect "inspirational" figures. Trudeau was the exception, not the rule. We also tend not to base elections around character traits. Is she honest? Does she lie? Is he a serial exaggerator? Does he know the names of foreign leaders? Would you like to have a beer with him? These questions just don't tend to come up. It's more about what the policies are and what the record of the government is. I think there are probably several reasons for that, but a central reason is that we have a parliamentary system with fusion (not separation) of powers. The Prime Minister is not personally elected by the country, and there is always a government in power responsible for the policies that are in place at any given time; there is never an "open" or non-incumbent race in Canada as there is in the US this time around. So, this is a long way of saying I would vote for Clinton because I think she has the policies and the experience with the cut and thrust of politics to get the job done.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 8:52 PM

"don't choose your family" -- is that some sort of an allusion to her husband?

I think it's borrowed from a piece by Bill Galston in The New Republic: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/19/an-alternate-take-william-galston-reviews-obama-s-speech.aspx. "Obama cannot disown Rev. Wright because, he says, 'he has been like family to me.' Like family, perhaps; but in the last analysis, not family. We do not choose our parents; we do choose our mentors and spiritual advisors."

Posted by Peter Levine | March 25, 2008 9:11 PM

And up and choosing Harold Ford or the like for a running mate isn't going to solve her issues with the AA community or the youth vote that's come out for Obama.

You've got that right. A sellout like Harold Ford is not going to placate the Black Community. Not in the least.

Posted by rikyrah | March 26, 2008 1:48 AM

A sell-out like Harold Ford?

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 2:02 AM

I get so tired of reading comments that say, she lied, and that she is going after obama and his pastor. She was asked a question...! But the fact that Obama said he never heard his pastor say these things, then he said he did..what is that? He stated a sum of money that he donated to charity that came from "a supporter" who is now on trial, then that amount changed, you all missing all that? Will it change again? What about his other questionable friends? His voting record is based on pressing the wrong button! The debates are pure funny! She gets the questions, he follows her lead. If she reacts to something from his camp, she is playing dirty but when he reacts, he gets an attaboy? Her life is an open book, wait until all the dirt on Obama comes to light and I hope Hillary's camp will bring it on!

Posted by JLH | March 27, 2008 2:25 AM