It Puts Hair On His Chest

As Hillary Clinton begins to talk openly about Sen. Obama's "choice" of pastors, bear in mind that she has three different audiences: the most important of them being the smallest: the remaining superdelegates. The more they worry about Obama, the more they will be afraid that their constituents will worry about Obama, and the longer they will wait.

Every day a superdelegate does not endorse Obama is one more day that HRC has to convince Pennsylvanians that their votes will move her closer to the nomination, even if, ceteris paribus, the nomination will not be hers for the taking.

I asked a top HRC adviser this a.m. to assess the argument that all of this is hurting the inevitable nominee -- Barack Obama. The adviser was blunt: "So now Obama expects to win the nomination without toughening up and lasting all fifteen rounds?"

The weird implication: if Obama is the nominee, all of this is _good_ for him in that it, as a father is want to say to a son, puts hair on his chest. In other words: this would have come up anyway, and because Hillary is making Obama fight for the nomination, she's "toughening" him up if he wins.

It's a pretty audacious argument.

Comments

The shrew will never give up. Ever.

She is a disgusting piece of shit.

Posted by Sally | March 25, 2008 6:00 PM

I think that argument holds water, to an extent. It's better that Wright came out now rather than October. Nevertheless, it's pretty deceitful to recruit donations for HRC if you really just believe your doing something in the best interest of Obama. That's not the case, though: suggesting that he's not as qualified as McCain is out-right treachery.

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 6:02 PM

It certainly seems to be good for McCain.

Posted by Anna K. | March 25, 2008 6:03 PM

It is a pretty ridiculous one as well.

Are we supposed to believe for HIS own good ? Come on !

Posted by Benjamin | March 25, 2008 6:06 PM

The Clinton campaign is living in a fantasy land.

It is horrifying watching the Clintons who are so selfish that they are willing to destroy the party for a minuscule chance to become the nominee in what would eventually be a losing battle - there is no way in hell she would ever win the GE.

If she destroys Obama to win the nomination then she will never win the GE - half of the party will NEVER forgive either of the Clintons - in fact, I think we are already there.

Posted by Kristi | March 25, 2008 6:06 PM

Here's the thing - while pointing to Wright privately may make superdelegates nervous about Obama, having Clinton herself attack Obama publicly ought to make them very nervous about her. How does Hillary expect to get even moderately decent Black turnout in the general election if she is the nominee after going this route?

Posted by John | March 25, 2008 6:07 PM

Yeah, endorsing the candidate from the opposing party is good for the eventual nominee of your party. Another triumph of "if A then Z" logic. If you want a real example of that, follow Hillary's tortured trail of statements on FL and MI.

Hmmm. If it's so great, how come she whines every time Obama points out one of her lies (Bosnia, NAFTA, etc.) "Waaaaah! He's going 'negative' and he said he wouldn't! Waaaaahhhhh!!!!!" When did pointing out an opposing candidate's blatant lies become "negative"? Why shouldn't she "toughen up" if she plans on going "15 rounds"? Smells like a double standard.

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

There are actually 4 audiences. You left out John McCain for whose veep she's auditioning.

Posted by Ron | March 25, 2008 6:09 PM

In a matter of months, I've gone from having a typically vague, sentimental fondness for the Clinton era to hating them with every fiber of my being. If she keeps this shit up, she won't even be a senator for much longer.

Posted by tinisoli | March 25, 2008 6:13 PM

If she keeps this shit up, she won't even be a senator for much longer.

Well it's not like her 8 years has been particularly distinguished. Heck, she sits on the Armed Services Committee and CSCE, and the only thing she can point to as foreign policy experience are a bunch of fluff from when she was first lady.

Other than voting to invade Iraq and voting to potentially start a war with Iran, just what are your foreign policy accomplishments outside of your husband's presidency, Ms. Clinton?

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 6:22 PM

Folks - calm down.

A lot of us have said that "if hillary gets the nom, i'll abstain or vote mccain" which is a bunch of baloney intended to intimidate the rival candidate's supporters.

No matter what happens, even if hill steals the nomination, a Democrat is going to win in the fall. If hillary wins, it will be by a narrow margin, and the down-ticket seats we're hoping for probably won't play out the way we want, but we'll still have a commander in chief with liberal views. And look at it another way - if she does win, at least we'll know there's a tenacious, do anything to win, crazed sociopath with no morals or scruples promoting our views. We'd get most of what we want for the four years of her Presidency.

And even if four years under president clinton II re-energizes the conservative movement and they are able to rebuild their coalition and dominate American polity for another 20 years, they probably wouldn't completely rape the entire country for personal gain. They have to leave something for their kids.

Posted by Jordan Weber-Flink | March 25, 2008 6:23 PM

I think Tanya Harding made this same argument. I hope the superdelegates are enjoying the show.

Posted by Keith | March 25, 2008 6:26 PM

It's divisive to the party. When McCain and the Republicans bring this stuff up, the Dems can unite together to fight it. When Clinton drags herself and Obama through the mud, the supporters of each fight each other and the other candidate, including the eventual nominee. It's not even a close call.

But I wouldn't expect the Clinton people to care one bit about that. We've seen the character of HRC quite clearly.

Posted by evie | March 25, 2008 6:29 PM

Well, Tonya had a point: would Oksana Baiul really have given Nancy's knees a free pass?

(Okay, the analogy breaks down a little bit here.)

Posted by alkali | March 25, 2008 6:29 PM

And even if four years under president clinton II re-energizes the conservative movement and they are able to rebuild their coalition and dominate American polity for another 20 years, they probably wouldn't completely rape the entire country for personal gain. They have to leave something for their kids.

Not rape, just reapportioning. They want to skew wealth distribution to ensure their kids will be just fine and they're will be a serf class to keep things running ... as long as they don't accumulate too much wealth which aligns nicely with political power.

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 6:30 PM

We had to destroy the candidate in order to save him. [/obligatory vietnam reference]

Posted by lifelong democrat | March 25, 2008 6:31 PM

Hillary cannot tell the difference between truth and lie. If she cannot tell the difference between dodging sniper fire and a welcome poem from an eight-year-old girl, how will she respond to the 3 a.m. red phone call? She is commander-in-lies, and from day one she will lie to the American people. The Clinton dynasty is destroying the Democratic party in their effort to destroy Senator Obama. Wolfson can accept Carville's vile attacks on the nation's first and only Hispanic governor, but the Obama campaign is not permitted to defend itself. Does the Empress expect only eunachs to surround her? The party will lose the younger generation of voters, and many in the mainstream like myself, a life-long senior citizen party member. The Clinton dynastic machine may prevail but it will leave the republic and the party in ruins.

Posted by lin | March 25, 2008 6:37 PM

"Every day a superdelegate does not endorse [the Clintons] is one more day..." they didn't jump for the old Clinton machine. The reluctance of the super delegates to embrace Hillary back in February, after winning California, New York, Massachussettes, etc., they were clearly inclined to go for anyone but Hillary. If I am not mistaken, the super delegates have broken 40:1 in favor of Obama.

Hillary has made some odd choices herself...like her prayer/bible study group that includes former Senator "Macaca" Allen.

Posted by cadmus | March 25, 2008 6:44 PM

You can't choose your husband either, apparently.

Posted by Marcus | March 25, 2008 6:50 PM

Thank you, Marc.

Do you at last see how bad/desperate the Clinton campaign is becoming?

The worst part is - I don't think they've hit bottom yet.

Posted by TedL | March 25, 2008 6:52 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 theory 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.

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

More info
http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/

And, of course, Hillary is speaking out now, after refusing comment, is to divert attention from her blatant lie, repeated on numerous occasions about her Bosnia trip. It wasn’t a misstatement when you repeat it word for word on multiple occasions over time. That is how the Clintons operate. Instead of answering the question, attack your opponent. The same as the tax return issue. Now, he’s put all of his laundry out there, and she still fights tooth and nail for every release.

Posted by Courtney H | March 25, 2008 6:54 PM

The most interesting thing about this exchange with the HRC staffer is that it seems to indicate that they are pretty resigned to defeat. I don't hear anything in this that suggests a plan, or even a mild expectation, for an HRC victory.

If true, this will only feed the conspiracy theory now circulating that HRC wants Obama to lose in 08 so she can run in 2012 - although even the most reality-challenged HRC supporter must know that she has already forfeited any chance of ever becoming president with her actions.

Posted by BillB | March 25, 2008 6:55 PM

So, the corollary being, that Obama the story-teller should not say anything that could damage HRC for the fall, since she still could win (since he isn't going to cross the finish line w/out SD's either)?

I await for his campaign to stop the crap.

Posted by JB | March 25, 2008 6:57 PM

The strategy is pretty clear to me. The Clintons aren’t stupid. And they are patient. What’s going on right now is that they are rendering Obama unelectable by alienating the swing vote, and delaying his ability to compete with John McCain for the middle of the road.

Obama will get the nomination. You know it. I know it. Bill and Hill know it. Everybody knows it. When he loses in November, Hill will be there (probably on CNN on election night) saying, “I told you so.” Then—in her psychopathic mind—begins the march toward her coronation in 2012.

Fair-minded people, patriots, and right thinking Americans need to band together right now to make sure she is punished (not rewarded) for this cynical ploy, and that the closest she ever gets to the White House will be on the tour the national park service gives.

Posted by Jim G. | March 25, 2008 6:58 PM

Hillary Clinton doesn't want to lose and her staff is sticking by her and this "hair on your chest" stuff is nonsense.

Every cut they put on Obama is a marker for McCain to take a hatchet too. Or the RNC. Or the Freedom Watch group.

The only good thing is that this all came out during this lull in the voting. The Obama camp has a chance to do clean up without simultaneously preparing for a primary.

Evenutally, the superdelgates are going to have to make a choice. If Obama can bring a tie out of the Pennsylvania primay that would be a good excuse for a host of delegates to declare and help put him over the edge in NC and IN.

But the next four weeks are God's gift to John McCain.

Posted by Rhoda | March 25, 2008 7:00 PM

There are 116 United Church of Christ churches in the Chicago area. There are over a dozen within 10 miles of Barack & Michelle Obama’s home. Why that church? As a private citizens if your family is fine with a pastor and church who holds as even a small part of there views anti American, Anti Semitic, Pro Hamas Terrorist organization, Anti white as part of the ministry it is your right to stay as members and be feed spiritually there and if that is what feeds your soul, fine we as fellow Americans support your rights to that. As to America being OK with our President being a member of such a church, we say no way! No one has ask you to change faiths but a change in church fellowship and spiritual advisers of which you have 116 other churches and pastors to choose from is totally within a reasonable request for someone running to be the next President of the United States! Thank you Barack Obama for your radio address where you let us know you and Michelle have chosen to continue being spiritually feed from that specific church and pastor with ALL there messages. We will support your right to that as a private citizen but we will not elect you as our President. Change & Unity are more then words they require action and hard work! The kind of solutions to serious problems we face is what Hillary Clinton offers us and is the real change and unity we are looking for. You may speak the words about these things but your actions do not.

Posted by Roger | March 25, 2008 7:03 PM

At this point, voting for McCain if Clinton is the nominee is no longer a threat. It's four years of moderate Republican rule. As a one term president, he won't be beholden to the right because he won't be seeking relection. He's so moderate, he considered party switching. And he, at least, defended Obama on Pastor-flap (I know, probably more to do with Hagee, but still, a decent move on his part).

Clinton clearly doesn't represent my views, and I have no faith she will fulfill her campaign promises -- I'd rather know what I'm getting with McCain, bad as it is, than wonder what the heck she'll do in office. Her platform is built on a healthcare plan that benefits the insurance companies, and even then would be difficult to get through the Congress. It's all about positioning. She's not a Democrat. Look at Bill, who instituted welfare to work, DOMA, and Don't Ask Don't Tell, NAFTA, China's "most favored nation" status, etc. He made promises, but he wasn't good for the African-Americans, gays and lesbians, or working classes he promised to help. Four years of McCain? I think I can survive it.

Posted by Laura | March 25, 2008 7:20 PM

Marc, how very audacious of you to believe the words flying out of the mouth of a Clinton campaign rep? Just like the candidate herself, they're all a bunch of liars. Maybe the next time your on the phone with one of them, why don't you ask him if Senator Obama can choose his pastor, can Hillary choose her husband?

Posted by charmedcitypolitico | March 25, 2008 7:20 PM

At this point, voting for McCain if Clinton is the nominee is no longer a threat. It's four years of moderate Republican rule. As a one term president, he won't be beholden to the right because he won't be seeking relection. He's so moderate, he considered party switching. And he, at least, defended Obama on Pastor-flap (I know, probably more to do with Hagee, but still, a decent move on his part).

Clinton clearly doesn't represent my views, and I have no faith she will fulfill her campaign promises -- I'd rather know what I'm getting with McCain, bad as it is, than wonder what the heck she'll do in office. Her platform is built on a healthcare plan that benefits the insurance companies, and even then would be difficult to get through the Congress. It's all about positioning. She's not a Democrat. Look at Bill, who instituted welfare to work, DOMA, and Don't Ask Don't Tell, NAFTA, China's "most favored nation" status, etc. He made promises, but he wasn't good for the African-Americans, gays and lesbians, or working classes he promised to help. Four years of McCain? I think I can survive it. She opened my eyes by talking about what a great commander in chief he'd be.

Posted by Laura | March 25, 2008 7:21 PM

Of course that's what HRC's camp would say. She's losing, for God sake, and there is no justifiable reason for her to remain in this race. She has to make up reasons to remain. The problem is, she is darn good at “making up things” and, unfortunately, the press cowers to her. What is she really doing? She is absolutely taking (stealing) votes away from the democratic party and handing them to McCain on a silver platter. That’s better for her in the long run, you know. She can then run again in 2012. It’s all about her. Why, oh why can’t the press nor the Democratic Party see this? Please, someone, kick her out quick. She is making this race so ugly and tarnished that the Democrats will not be able to win. If you don’t believe it, read the blogs.

Posted by LH | March 25, 2008 7:22 PM

The reason is quite simple and straightforward, Amblinders. Obama is not a good candidate for the Democrats to put forward in November. Far from being the best. That is why ALL OF THE RIGHT WING SHILLS ARE CARRYING WATER FOR HIM NOW.

Take a look, Drudge, Politico, Brooks, Novak, Rove, Sullivan, etc., etc. They are GROOMING THE TURKEY FOR THANKSGIVING SLAUGHTER. You shouldn't have to sit there analyzing your navel for hours on end to reach such an obvious conclusion.

Posted by robert ethan | March 25, 2008 7:41 PM

It's a dumb, dishonest argument Marc.
(Hillary's, not yours.)

Attacks by Democrats against Democrats are intrinsically different for an obvious reason: they support the conclusion that Democrats are disingenuous and can't be trusted.

Down the line, low-info voters will be thinking--if Hillary is sooooooo against Obama, there must be something very wrong with him. We know she's more opposed to him because she wants to be President and thinks she'd do a better job but most of us doubt that her reservations about him have much to do with her lines about NAFTA, abortion rights, his pastor, and the size/color of his states-won.

It fosters doubt about things she doesn't doubt, ironically distracting from whatever her real beefs are.

****

In contrast, dishonest attacks from Republicans are different because they are much easier for Obama to deal with. He can go after Republicans without concern for damaging the Democratic party. He can invoke the old "hey! this is the party of Bush!" rebuttal. And most critically, he'll have about half the country--Democrats--vouching for what he says, covering his back.

Against Hillary, given her Tonya Harding approach to intra-party relationships, Obama cannot responsibly respond in quite the same way.

Posted by Hepdog | March 25, 2008 7:41 PM

Just where are the superdelegates? Is Richardson the other 40 or so the only ones with any backbone?

I know Hillary has done her best to keep them on the fence and pulled every political favor possible as well as negative campaigning to scare them, but enough is enough.

They should be asked to come out and end this debacle right now!!!

Posted by Mike in Sac | March 25, 2008 7:45 PM

All this talk about how this or that will hurt Obama cracks me up. It reminds me of Florida 2000, when Antonin Scalia was so concerned how a recount would hurt George W. Bush's chances for the presidency. Funny, but I thought there were two people in the race. The same here. There are two people running, and neither has clinched it yet. Stop protecting Obama, and let people vote. If he wins, then he won't need protection anymore -- or a pillow to keep him comfortable -- and he will have won the nomination outright, all on his own.

Posted by Sue | March 25, 2008 7:48 PM

That was quite profound, Sally.

Posted by Suzy | March 25, 2008 7:50 PM

If Clinton keeps this up, McCain gets his most favorite wish: To win the presidency while kicking the sociopaths and nutters out of his party.

Essentially, what McCain wants is a Republican Party, with all the good parts of the Reagan legacy, while at the same time unhitched from the Southern Strategy of the past 40 years. A Clinton win gives him this. The day after a brokered convention, he gets to sweep in and open the Republican Party to the support of moderate progressives and African-Americans, basically telling the hard right that its day in the sun is over. He doesn't even have to give up much in the general election --- just blast members of his own party who go over the edge, make some statements that bigots aren't welcome among Republicans, &c. Then, in November, he sweeps a large number of progressive states. And, he builds an administration long on conservative approaches, but short on conservative ideology.

Given Clinton's activity over the past few months, I would be more than happy to assist him in accomplishing these goals. (If Obama doesn't get the nod, which he probably will.)

Posted by Monstertron | March 25, 2008 8:08 PM

JB, care to give some examples of things Obama has said that would be damaging to Clinton in the GE?

Roger, your points might have some validity if your remarks were describing the church Obama belongs to, but they don't.

robert ethan is so divorced from reality that it isn't worth the effort to reply.

Posted by john m | March 25, 2008 8:10 PM

I wouldn't put it past the nut jobs at MoveOn.org to put up a primary opponent against her in 2012.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 8:39 PM

Here's a truth...

I am African American/black and a FORMER Clinton supporter.

I have talked with many other African American/black family members, friends, and colleagues.

If she gets the nomination, we won't vote against her...

we just won't vote.

There is a STRONG feeling about this.

Good luck winning without our vote.

Posted by trinity | March 25, 2008 8:47 PM

Of course the Clintons float another deceptive and arrogant argument; it's their nature.

The bottom line is that Hillary doesn't care about the Democratic party, much less the entire nation. And I really do believe that in many respects Hillary is less honorable and more vicious than McCain could ever be.

In fact, Hillary and Bill are morphing into the vast right wing conspiracy that they famously fought. Bill calls into Rush's radio show, Hillary gives an interview to a far right wing rag in Pittsburgh. They both play the race card endlessly.

What Hillary is doing is vicious and negative; the superdelegates should pull the plug on her campaign immediately.

Posted by cm | March 25, 2008 9:14 PM

Isn't this the "B**ch-slap theory" of political attacks? You hit em hard, if they respond, call them whiners?

And I don't think that July/August of 2004 was good for Kerry--that was when the Swiftboaters defined Kerry as some pansy with purple band-aids. No, this isn't good for Obama, Clinton, and especially for the Democrats' chance of winning the General Election.l

Posted by Beth in VA | March 25, 2008 9:17 PM

Once people watch "fox lies" on you tube, Hillary and McCain have no chance. What Barack said about race is happenning under your nose

Posted by malachi weir | March 25, 2008 9:23 PM

Once people watch "fox lies" on you tube, Hillary and McCain have no chance. What Barack said about race is happenning under your nose

Posted by malachi weir | March 25, 2008 9:23 PM

Tim K, I would imagine a number of Democrats are eying that seat, depending on how many people she alienates between now and November. (I'm reminded of Ferraro's early fulminating about switching supers--that some of these people, having endorsed Hillary in December, were now threatened with a primary challenger in their district....it was clearly the most unfair thing she could fathom.)

The "withdraw with grace and you can be Senate President" argument was February. I think we've passed that.

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 9:30 PM

obama has to live with his poor judgment. For whatever reason, who cares, he decided to go this church where the rev. spewed hate routinely. Again who cares why obama made that choice. He can blame Hillary for his poor judgment but should we be unlucky and the "liberal media" gets the dem nom they are working so hard for obama will be beaten to within an inch of his political life with his crazy uncles hate filled speech. We’ll end up with more war and more oceans of blood.

Posted by hadenough | March 25, 2008 9:37 PM

The Crazytalk Express™ IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 25, 2008 9:42 PM

This woman is not only getting desperate but she is also looking like she is getting desperate.

Do we want a president who will betray this lack of self confidence?

Moreover, do we want a Democratic Party whose registered voters and hard working campaigners are, in the end, betrayed by super-delegates in favor of the Clintons who are superior only in their own imaginations?

Posted by Robert Campbell | March 25, 2008 9:44 PM

BTW, where are her tax returns?

Posted by Robert Campbell | March 25, 2008 9:46 PM

In 1992 when Hillary's husband was running for president he came to Burlington Ia. Someone in the crowd held up a sign saying Hillary was a fox
and they though it was funny. But now she is just a bitch and one that lies too

Posted by Tom | March 25, 2008 10:01 PM

A year ago, I assumed HRC would be the nominee. I hoped it would be Obama, but tried not to hope too hard. I was fine with HRC as the nominee and eventual president.

I think that what is at issue here is whether it would be good for liberal causes to have her as president. I now think she, like Nixon, is a disaster waiting to happen. HRC really, really, really wants to be president. Really, really, really needs to be president. That's not a recipe for anything good.

Posted by Matt | March 25, 2008 10:11 PM

I have no quibble with the word "audacious," but "argument?" Picking on Obama to toughen him up may be a kind of presidential bootcamp...for him. I fail to see how it accomplishes anything for Hillary, however.

She's running for president, not as his sparring partner before the big fight.

Posted by Herb | March 25, 2008 10:39 PM

Turns out Wright also came from the upper middle class, just like Obama...and formed his "Goddamn America" schtick after being raised in a nice Philly neighborhood and going to a nearly all-white, elite HS.

Morton KLein - OBAMA'S PASTOR RAISED IN PRIVILEGE, NOT POVERTY
How do I know?
It happens that, as a Philadelphian, I attended Central High School – the same public school Jeremiah Wright attended from 1955 to 1959. He could have gone to an integrated neighborhood school, but he chose to go to Central, a virtually all-white school. Central is the second oldest public high school in the country, which attracts the most serious academic students in the city. The school then was about 80% Jewish and 95% white. The African-American students, like all the others, were there on merit. Generally speaking, we came from lower/middle class backgrounds. Many of our parents had not received a formal education and we tended to live in row houses. In short, economically, we were roughly on par.
I attended Central a few years after Rev. Wright, so I did not know him personally. But I knew of him and I know where he used to live – in a tree-lined neighborhood of large stone houses in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. This is a lovely neighborhood to this day. Moreover, Rev. Wright's father was a prominent pastor and his mother was a teacher and later vice-principal and disciplinarian of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, also a distinguished academic high school. Two of my acquaintances remember her as an intimidating and strict disciplinarian and excellent math teacher. In short, Rev. Wright had a comfortable upper-middle class upbringing. It was hardly the scene of poverty and indignity suggested by Senator Obama to explain what he calls Wright's anger and what I describe as his hatred.

Posted by chris ford | March 25, 2008 10:44 PM

Once again hadenough would have an argument if his description of the church was accurate.
But since it isn't he doesn't have an argument at all.

Posted by john m | March 25, 2008 10:47 PM

Same logic as Johnny's Cash's song:
A Boy Called Sue

Pretty twisted logic -- it works great for a country song, but it pretty absurd for a presidential election

Posted by John c | March 25, 2008 11:11 PM

Obama has the most loathsome of constituencies.

The Far Left Flakes like Airyanus Huffs'n'puffs, the Golddigging Gossip Hag, "Mighty Mouth" Moulitas, the Miniscule Mediterranean, Nancy (vampire mistress of Bella Lugosi) Pelosi, Stutterin' Elmer Fudd the Former Mayor of Vermont, "Taco Beel" Reeecharson, zee Fat Mexican Bandito, etc.

As well as the Righty REPtilian Rats like Dumpster Diver Drudge, the Pig in the Porkpie Hat, Randy Andy Sullivan, (when he isn't working to legalize the import/export of fatal viruses from foreign countries), The "Undead Slovak", Robert Novak, "Short Fat White Dick" Morris, etc.

Finally the MOST RACIST DEMOGRAPHIC IN AMERICA, (the folks who overwhelmingly think that O.J. Simpson was innocent) who turned against the people who had done the most to help their cause in America over the past two decades, to vote (9-1) for some prep school kid from Hawaii who decided to become a "black man" somewhere around 30 years of age. When he could no longer be a BMOC at Harvard with the financial support of his wealthy Kansas grandparents, the Dunhams.

Posted by robert ethan | March 25, 2008 11:45 PM

Dear Robert Ethan, Of all the anti-Obama posters on political blogs everywhere, you not only take the prize for "most incomprehensible," but you also have a unique ability to remind me that a mind can in fact be terribly wasted.

Posted by justaperson | March 26, 2008 12:33 AM

Here's a truth...

I am African American/black and a FORMER Clinton supporter.

I have talked with many other African American/black family members, friends, and colleagues.

If she gets the nomination, we won't vote against her...

we just won't vote.

There is a STRONG feeling about this.

Good luck winning without our vote.

Trinity,

thought it was just my family.

There are 12 of us. All loyal Democrats.

Only 2 will vote for Hillary.

ONLY 2.

Like I've been saying.

Blue states in the midwest and east are blue because of Blue Cities. Blue cities are such because of the Black vote. Period.

Try winning PA, OH, IL, MO, MI, VA, MD without the Black vote.

Good luck.

Posted by rikyrah | March 26, 2008 1:22 AM

Jeremiah Wright: Child Of Privilege

He sure didn't come from the ghetto.

**************************

I'm not sure where you're coming from with this.

To that, I will say, SO WHAT?

Unlike NOW, in 2008, where coming from the ghetto would mean certain things about your life.

In Jeremiah Wright's day, as with my parents, the ONLY thing that determined how far you could go in life WAS BEING BLACK.

PERIOD.

There were PhD's working in the U.S. Post Office? Did you know that?

You and the author seem to be under some delusion that segregation was better for some Blacks than others. It crushed ALL Black folk because what was possible for them was so limited.

It isn't not like it is for me or Obama's generation.

There was no ' what CAREER do you want?'

CAREER?

There was no such talk.

My father scored in the top 1% of the CPA Exam. He spoke another language outside of English.

But, my father was born in 1922, and so, his OPTIONS were severely limited.

HE HAD NONE for a professional career.

He worked at the Post Office, and then the Veterans Administration.

My mother was a Phi Beta Kappa who had 2 Masters Degrees before she was 25.

But, she was born in 1930....so, the only options open to her were TEACHER and SOCIAL WORKER.

THAT WAS IT.

You don't think that it would make you even MORE angry, if you had all this education, and intellectually, you knew you could match up to anyone, but weren't given even the remote shot of a chance because of the color of your skin? You don't think that would add to your anger?

I would like for you to explain how being a 'Child of Privilege' somehow negates the experience of Jim Crow on Jeremiah Wright's soul.

You don't think it's an accident that many of the leaders of the Black Community were among its more 'Privileged' Citizens, do you?

Martin Luther King - son of a Preacher

ED Nixon - Pullman Porter

Andrew Young - Son of Privilege

Julian Bond - Son of Privilege

Maynard Jackson - Son of Privilege

Very few of the leaders of the Black Community come from ' The Common Class'. Fannie Lou Hamer was an exception. The overwhelming majority were educated people.

Posted by eudoxie | March 26, 2008 1:30 AM

And, as far as Obama having a ' choice' of church and pastor....

I have been making the rounds of ' MSM' Blogs to make this point.

There was a Rasmussen Poll done on Wright.

Poll on Wright

Here's the money section for me:

Overall, voters are evenly divided as to whether Obama should resign his membership in the Church—42% say that he should while 40% disagree. White voters, by a 46% to 33% margin, say that Obama should leave the Church. African-American voters, by a 68% to 16% margin, say he should not. Wright retired last month as Pastor of the Church.

While there was a 13 point difference FOR among Whites, look at the gap among Blacks - 52%.

52% AGAINST.

Why?

Church isn't some simple place where you go on Sunday to listen to the pastor for 30 minutes.

Church, in the Black Community, is all about COMMUNITY.

It's why, it's literally an all-day affair.

Black people do not change churches like they do purses. I am in my 30's, and outside of school, I've had exactly 2 church homes in my life. It took nearly 2 years to find the second one, but I found it. Commitment to a church isn't something that's done fly-by-night. It's not some fleeting commitment. It is a given that you will find something that you don't like about any church you attend; which is why it is the general COMMUNITY that will ultimately make that decision.

The Black Church is the ONLY institution, in the United States of America, which, from its conception,

Validated, Supported, Incubated, and Treasured.

BLACK HUMANITY.

Period.

Don't think I'm correct, then name me another institution which has done so.

The attack on Trinity is seen as an attack on the Black Church, and thus, by extension, an attack on the Black Community as a whole.

During times of slavery and Jim Crow, the Black Church was what reinforced Community.

Post Civil Rights and Integration, the Black Church is now what brings Community together, considering that the Black Community, like the rest of America, is becoming more stratified along the lines of class. The Black Church is really the only place in Black America where you will consistently find the doctor and welfare mother in the same building, with the same purpose. It's the place to break down those walls of class that are building up.

To disown Wright and Trinity would be to disown the Black Community itself, which is why Obama said in his speech he couldn't. He understood that fundamentally about the Black Community, and he understood that political expediency would mean the doubting of the existence of his soul by the Black community. Obama would never be trusted again by Black folk if he had disowned Wright & Trinity. Even Black folk that don't go to church understand that you don't mess with the Black Church - it's just not done.

Posted by rikyrah | March 26, 2008 1:37 AM

Posted by Jordan Weber-Flink | March 25, 2008 6:23 PM

Folks - calm down.
A lot of us have said that "if Hillary gets the nom, i'll abstain or vote mccain" which is a bunch of baloney intended to intimidate the rival candidate's supporters.

If you think that is really the case, I have some land I’ll sell in the 9th ward in New Orleans at a good price. Many people myself included have never nor will they ever support Hillary Clinton for any reason! The first time I heard her “Ready on day one” slogan. My next thought was literally yep to be stonewalled by a deadlocked congress. This doesn’t even cover having to tangle with a conservatively loaded supreme court...

No matter what happens, even if hill steals the nomination, a Democrat is going to win in the fall.

If Hillary wins, it will be by a narrow margin, and the down-ticket seats we're hoping for probably won't play out the way we want, but we'll still have a commander in chief with liberal views.

Unlikely Hillary has always put all her eggs into one basket “experience” however it’s turning out much of it is nothing but exaggerated fluff.

McCain fry up this so called “experience” like an order of sunny side up eggs. Then take her lame brain economic package toss it into a sausage grinder and make it a side dish, He’ll then take anything that’s left dice it up as garnish and serve it for breakfast.

If you don't want to wait until this fall. Head to your local Denny's and order The Classic Grand Slam Breakfast!

Because that’s what a head to head Hillary Clinton V. John McCain would be… A 45+ state blow out for the Republican party…

Posted by SC Rose | March 26, 2008 2:04 AM

Posted by Jordan Weber-Flink | March 25, 2008 6:23 PM

Folks - calm down.
A lot of us have said that "if Hillary gets the nom, i'll abstain or vote mccain" which is a bunch of baloney intended to intimidate the rival candidate's supporters.

Here folks going again, not taking people at their word. Walking around with this delusion that folks, particularly Black folks, are just gonna shuffle back along behind Miss Hillary if she STEALS this from Obama.

Believe us.
Don't.

Matters not to me.

But, Black folks in the blogosphere are trying hard to be canaries in the mine on this issue.

Posted by rikyrah | March 26, 2008 2:21 AM

Posted by The Force | March 26, 2008 3:11 AM

http://hotimg15.fotki.com/p/a/64_231/71_17/Darth-Scum.jpg

Posted by The Force | March 26, 2008 3:11 AM

The only better thing for John McCain than Hillary prolonging the contest would be...

CLINTON/NADER '08 !!!!

Posted by Stu | March 26, 2008 7:08 AM

So the primary isn't a contest to determine the candidate the best represents the Democrats, but a trial run for the general. OK, that's one way to look at it. But if this is a simulated race against Republicans, why confine it to character issues and mud slinging? Let's see some serious challenges and clever misrepresentations over policy, too. And now that they're playing the role of the Republicans, the Clinton campaign needn't limit themselves to positions they actually hold. So, for example, when is Clinton going to strongly criticize Obama's health care plan? I don't mean nitpick about mandates; I mean attack the entire idea that the federal government ought to be more involved in a large part of the national economy. Attack it for how much it's going to cost, how it's going to interfere with the way the majority of Americans get health care and health care workers do their jobs, how similar plans are failing in Massachusetts and California, how it represents a first step towards a government takeover of a major industry. Did I mention how much this is going to cost? And what about this cut-and-run plan of his for Iraq? What about the people of Iraq; is Obama willing to allow them to endure a civil war that makes any previous violence look minor, a war that could grow to include Turkey and Iran? Does he really think the US will be more secure with a gigantic power vacuum in the heart of the Middle East? Isn't his plan much too optimistic, and didn't his foreign policy advisor say as much when talking to a foreign newspaper? And on and on and on...

If the Clinton campaign's job is to play devil's (er, Republicans') advocate, they're doing a poor job of it. They should be replaced with someone who will REALLY test Obama.

Posted by CG | March 26, 2008 11:46 AM

When Hillary answered her ill-timed remark about, Rev. Wright would not be her pastor, although, he can be a Guest at my White House, she was sitting with Richard Mellon Scaife, the very one who had persecuted her and Bill during their White House years and gave her so much grief. Why would she sit with him? Her arch enemy?

Here is an informative excerpt from Timothy Noah at Slate

"What the hell is Clinton doing meeting with reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review? The Tribune-Review is a money-losing fringe publication published by Richard Mellon Scaife, a bilious and wealthy crank who spent the 1990s manufacturing vile innuendo about the Clintons. If the "vast, right-wing conspiracy" on which first lady Hillary Clinton famously blamed her troubles can be said to exist, its chairman and chief executive officer was Scaife. Scaife gave the American Spectator $2.3 million to dig up dirt on Bill Clinton, and he used the Tribune-Review to spread, among other things, the reprehensible allegation that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, a clinically depressed deputy White House counsel who committed suicide in 1993. Scaife was quoted more than once calling Foster's death "the Rosetta stone to the Clinton administration," adding in an interview with George magazine, "Once you solve that one mystery, you'll know everything that's going on or went on—I think there's been a massive coverup. … Listen, [Bill Clinton] can order people done away with at his will. He's got the entire federal government behind him. … God, there must be 60 people who have died mysteriously." Timothy Noah, Mar. 25, 2008, Slate

This interview is like selling ones Soul to the devil, as Scaife, was her personal devil at that time.

This is Hillary's new strategy a "Tonya Harding", which brings to mind a woman who will do anything to win, no matter how Dishonest. However, Tonya Harding was sent Packing in Disgrace! Hillary's Bosnia recount and further information that the story was not factual, informs the public, along with other exagerrations, that she is a habitual story teller to further her own ends. Her Bosnia tale, was not embellishment as some would like to suggest, it was a deliberate fib, told over and over again, and like Tonya Harding, she got caught. Now she is trying to deflect attention away from this insight into her character, this betrayal of Public Trust, by bringing up the Rev. Wright matter again, just when we thought we had put it to bed, for a little while at least. We can see through this fib of hers that Hillary, a consumate Actress and Mistress of Spin, lacks character, authenticity, compassion and even loyalty, yet expects it from everyone else. Rev. Wright's words were not Hate Speech, yet some pundits would have you to believe that, want you to believe that. Rev. Wright's words were words of protest, controversial, and a rejection of some American policies after an emotional time, 911, but he never asked us to hate one another or America. We must not be lead down that dark path of illusion.

In further insult, Hillary has now elicited former Senator McGovern to go around to the various media to speak on a false premise "that it is harder to elect a woman than a Black man for President", in order to interject a gender divide along with the already racial divide, to further divide the country along racial and gender divisions. And no one has the Courage to stop her! She is like a cancer gone wild. In her insatiable quest for Power, she is destroying the Democratic Party and the country through racial and gender divisions.

In regards to her ill-timed response to questions of Rev. Wright, Hillary stated that we have a choice to choose our Pastor, however, we also have a Choice to Choose our President. And I hope we say No, Not This Time, to "Do and Say Anything Politicians, who will literally sell their Souls to the Devil!"

P.S. at his townhall speech today, Barack invited people to his church, gave the address and said check it out. Also, Rev. Wright marched many times with Martin Luther King.

Posted by Angellight | March 26, 2008 2:52 PM