« An "Attack" On The Church | Main | Still Snags In Michigan »

Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column

17 Mar 2008 07:11 am

Bill Kristol's New York Times column about Barack Obama this morning contains a major, prejudicial error.

Paragraph five:


But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain.

The error is in trusting the source without checking.

The truth is that Obama did not attend church on July 22.

He was on his way to campaign in Miami.

(Here is some video evidence.) This was before he signed an agreement forbidding himself from campaigning in Florida.

Here is the original, false, Newsmax story:
Obama Attended Hate America Sermon.

One of his correspondents allegedly attended a service last summer where Rev. Wright preached on the "United States of White America." Kessler writes that Obama "nodded" his head while Wright preached along these lines:


Addressing the Iraq war, Wright thundered, “Young African-American men” were “dying for nothing.” The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies” and is being “fought for oil money.”

Now, a simple Google search suggests that Obama spent most of the day in Miami. But a simple e-mail or telephone call to Obama's campaign might have cleared things up.

Comments (171)

In many ways Rev. Wright is correct. America is racially divided and black people seem to be taking the worst of what the US has to offer. Do the research and look at the statistics. Our prisons, our failing schoools, our military, poverty, hate speach, hate crimes. You do the math.

We are suffering from prejudice born from slavery and still 150 years after liberation we are fighting about race. Sure blacks are upset. Sure the situation calls for people who are oppressed to try to find solutions.

Does this mean that Barack Obama has these beliefs that inter-city blacks have. I don't think he does. He doesn't have the background. A Harvard education, A white mother, a desire to bring America together so we can all live as Americans instead of as Blacks, Whites, Asians, Jews. We can make a difference. The road will be frought with perill both personal and social.

Their are those who want to keep the status quo. Who benefits; businesses like McDonalds, Wallmart and other low paying oppressive companies who pay employees below poverty wages. Defense contractors who want us to always be at war. Oil companies who want to stop green energy and green technologies of any kind.

People, think about where you want the US to be. I want us to be our very best going forward in a positive way. The peanut gallery will always be biting at our ankles trying to turn us on our heads but we must not lose sight of the future we want. "Yes we can" bring this future into reality.

In many ways Rev. Wright is correct. America is racially divided and black people seem to be taking the worst of what the US has to offer. Do the research and look at the statistics. Our prisons, our failing schoools, our military, poverty, hate speach, hate crimes. You do the math.

We are suffering from prejudice born from slavery and still 150 years after liberation we are fighting about race. Sure blacks are upset. Sure the situation calls for people who are oppressed to try to find solutions.

Does this mean that Barack Obama has these beliefs that inter-city blacks have. I don't think he does. He doesn't have the background. A Harvard education, A white mother, a desire to bring America together so we can all live as Americans instead of as Blacks, Whites, Asians, Jews. We can make a difference. The road will be frought with perill both personal and social.

Their are those who want to keep the status quo. Who benefits; businesses like McDonalds, Wallmart and other low paying oppressive companies who pay employees below poverty wages. Defense contractors who want us to always be at war. Oil companies who want to stop green energy and green technologies of any kind.

People, think about where you want the US to be. I want us to be our very best going forward in a positive way. The peanut gallery will always be biting at our ankles trying to turn us on our heads but we must not lose sight of the future we want. "Yes we can" bring this future into reality.

What? You mean, Bill Kristol, that Serious, Respected conservative "journalist", said something untrue? After all those times he has been correct about Iraq?
Seriously, will nothing get this hack fired?

Ouch. Well caught. Don't they have fact-checkers at the NYT? The whole column pretty much turns on that 'fact'. Unforgivable, really.

Now, please excuse the self-indulgent off-topic question: but wouldn't it be a good idea for President Clinton to renounce his own title?

http://marbury.typepad.com/marbury/2008/03/one-president-i.html

marc, could you please send this to media outlets?!!!

i've already heard this on tv and not everybody is going to get their information online or have the discipline to fact check it!!

please i urge you! this is complete swiftboating!!!!

In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked. It's a lapse in judgment to think for a second that it's true because we'd undoubtedly have pictures or video of Obama nodding along w/ Wright if he were actually there, but it's not much of a journalism faux pas on his part.

Whoever edits his pieces, however, should be out at the NYT immediately. It's an item that screams "CHECK ME, CHECK ME; THIS IS AN INFLAMMATORY STORY AND WE'RE FUCKED IF WE'RE WRONG!" Wups.

Lucky for Clinton that Kristol et al keep bringing this up so her campaign can take the high road... oh wait: http://alchemytoday.com/2008/03/16/rep-nita-lowey-apes-mark-penn/

So, Marc Ambinder becomes Obama's campaign spokesperson? We knew that already.

You don't get it Michael: Marc is actually doing what a real journalist does.

Kristol could learn a thing or two.

So, right-wing hack gets story factually incorrect? Shocking. Let me know when it gets to "dog bites man". If Kristol thought that reporting the sky was green would help out his cronies, he'd report it without looking up first.

He took a charter flight back for the church service.
Marc, you better check your fact checker.

If he were Dan Rather, he'd already be out of a job. Liberal media, my you-know-what.

Someone from newsmax was with him in the pew and saw him spoke with him according to WPHT in Philly Michael Sperconish and saw him approve of the speech given by the Pastor. Call the station and speak with the nationally known MSNBC person.

Perhaps the Newsmax correspondent that saw Obama "nodding his head" during the service mistook another black man for Obama. I hear black people all look alike to many Newsmax correspondents.

Add me to the chorus of Americans who agree with Wright's point in essence. He could have found a better way to say it, but God damn America sometimes.

The thing nobody seems to be asking is why all the furor trying to find out about the "real" Obama? What about Barack Obama, who has written a self-revealing memoir, has opened his tax records, earmarks, and campaign contributions for public inspection- what makes some people so suspicious that they feel obligated to research his PASTOR?

Is it his name? Would we be hearing about his pastor if his name was Tim Smith? What if he was of Greek descent, and attended a church that decried the materialistic society we live in and claimed support of Ancestral Greco culture?

Why not research the other candidate's pastors? Why did Mike Huckabee get a pass on his OWN sermons?

This is beginning to look like a witch hunt to me. Obama has been completely open, maybe too open, giving some folks the idea that it is appropriate to literally tear the man apart so we can see what's inside.

Apply the same test to ALL the candidates, or to none. Enough of this evil.

And, for what it's worth, I'm white. But in America, that's not supposed to matter.

I'm with McClum ... What has this minister said that is not reasonably true? I'm sure Obama would love for him to have used slightly less confrontational language over all these years, but this guy is no different then our country full of Evangelical fearmongers telling their congregations about all those sinners out there going straight to hell to burn for all the interwebbing/TV watching/healthy sex/fun seaking we do.

Who's more inflamatory?

Krisotl is getting his "facts" from Newsmaxx???

Bwaaahaaaahaaa!!!! Hilarious!

How many times is this that Kristol has got his facts wrong in a NY Times column? Why is he still getting a paycheck from the "paper of record"?

Charter flight records will prove it....it's the cover up that kills ya.

This is the problem of the gotcha politics that all of us have colluded with. I am truly worried that the opportunity for the United States to move beyond fear and insecurity is being destroyed by the punditry in its attempt to frame a narrative that it can predict, control and make financial hay out of. For most part Senator Obama's campaign has managed to frame things in a fairly optimistic and compelling way. This will now change.

It is not just a shame for the US but also for the rest of the world. An hopeful United States is a boon for the rest of the world as there will be less wars and increased opportunities to trade and cooperate. Senator Obama is the best candidate for this potential . The current establishment whether in the media or otherwise will try to stop this. The true worry is that the average voter over 45 is also fully entrenched into this myopic perspective. There is so much to be worried about right now.

Zach,

Maybe if the source weren't a right-wing dumping ground that would be a fair point. But you don't trust a source with a well-known political bias on a fact that serves their bias.

NYT, WHY does this man have a column? Jeez louise.

I'm sure Tim Russert will confront Bill Kristol about all this the next time they meet. And if you believe that, I have a lovely bridge for sale...

Hey Kefa, any proof or link, or just another baseless accusation?

Charter flight records will prove it..
Goddamn Kefa, you are stupid.

The stock market is in danger of collapse. A new CENTCOM commander had to be cashiered because he publicly said Bush's plan was Bull.

Kristol's smear just seems like desperation to me.

just FYI, for people who don't know, if you see the name 'William Kristol' next to a piece of writing, that means by definition that what is written there will be un-supported by facts. Kristol does not believe in using 'facts'.

Given that the Obama campaign site is now claiming that Obama was not at the service on the 22nd, I would expect they have more than enough evidence to back up the claim. In other words, yes, Kefa's an idiot.

Kristol by all rights should lose his job for something like this. The funny part to me is that his second sentence in the first quote is basically an admission that the Newsmax story is likely false. It's almost like he's saying, "Well, even if this isn't true,...". The guy is total slime.

It is up to who ever writes a story,to know what they are writing is correct.
Kristol has never cared about facts.Never.
Perhaps if the US would stop meddling in other countries politics,we would have no reason for preachers,or for that matter for anyone to be negative about the US.
Waiting here for some news organization to lay into Preacher Hagge,ha...

It is up to who ever writes a story,to know what they are writing is correct.
Kristol has never cared about facts.Never.
Perhaps if the US would stop meddling in other countries politics,we would have no reason for preachers,or for that matter for anyone to be negative about the US.
Waiting here for some news organization to lay into Preacher Hagge,ha...

I have always suspected this Kristol guy. Is a wingnut front in the NYTimes. Now this has been proved true.

How about demanding a list of every Obama appearance at the church? Ambinder needs to be less invested in obama's candidacy.

Please send an email to the editorial board on this. Will they fire Kristol? Of course not, but perhaps they might make a public retraction. Since the error is actually pretty egregious by journalistic standards, IMHO.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to letters@nytimes.com.

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
To write to the editorial page editor, send to editorial@nytimes.com.

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Clark Hoyt, who represents the readers, e-mail public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652.

I wish your story were more specific, Marc. Although I'm inclined to believe it, it's certainly possible to be at a church service in Chicago in the AM and be giving a speech in Miami in the afternoon or evening.

More details, please.

So now I'm an idiot for stating a way to prove or dis prove a fact????? If he was at the Church service it will prove it. The Obama people will be the idiots if they are wrong....I will have my wonderful world bro. Believe me I will be fine. It will you that will be the idiot. Have a nice day Jake or should I say IdiotJake.

Kefa,

A charter flight could disprove the claim, but it can't be used to prove it. And yes, you're an idiot for stating otherwise.

What has become of the much vaunted integrity of the New York Times? I emailed their Public Editor this morning voicing my grave concerns regarding their lack of editorial oversight. Kristol's key assertion in the article is that Obama's integrity is now gone because he said he would remove himself from the church if he heard any inflammatory comments, and now there's this "proof" that he was there during a sermon in question. However, this "proof" including such details as Obama "nodding his head in agreement" turns out to be factually false. Libel anyone? Even the day before Kristol's article was published, Obama's web site flatly denied that he attended church on the day in question.

Marc Ambinder is quite correct. An elementary phone call to the Obama campaign would have cleared this up.

Just this morning, the low information hosts of "Fox and Friends" were parroting that the "NYT's is reporting" that Obama was present during one of these controversial sermon's. This so-called reporting was Kristol's hit piece on Obama. When will this madness end. Or is it just the beginning?

In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked

There is no defense for Kristol. It is exactly his job to reference sources that are not later debunked. That's part of his job.

Using Newsmax as a source? He's already cited and quoted Michelle Malkin in an earlier column. What's next, Debbie Schlussel?

you have to be brain dead to publish anything based on newsmax. my god

Morons like Kristol and media needs to understand that what matters to people is ECONOMY, Bear-Sterns going down th drain, jobs, etc and not what Wright preached. These morons need to understand that Wright may have said some wrong things but Obama has rejected it.

So move on prickheads. What affects me and others is ECONOMY
JOBS
HEALTH CARE
WARS
Bear Sterns going down the drain.

Speak about these issues if you have any brains.

Is there no fact-checking done by the Times? Do they just trust whatever this hack says is the truth??

The irony here is that some mud on the faces of Fox and Friends might just be the splash of cold water this story needs.

Zack,

Kristol doesn't make many "pretty honest mistakes". Kristol is a notorious liar. That fact has earned him a reputation. So for him not to double check his source, a 'journalist' from Newsmax, an organization overflowing with other notorious liars, that isn't "making an honest mistake", that's knowingly and notoriously spreading lies.

The editors at the New York Times have their work cut out for them having hired Bill Kristol. They should know that. If they don't they are useless as editors. If they do know that and let lies like this pass they are complicit. Either way, publishing Kristol's lie was no small thing.

I think the worst part isn't even that he USED Newsmax. But rather, that he didn't even CITE that it was his source. Saying that his source is "a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry" is very different from saying "Ronald Kessler from Newsmax". He's making it sound like a legitimate story when it might as well have come from the National Enquirer. What a tool.

It appears that the standard of journalism at the NY Times has sunk so low that it is nothing more than a clipping service for right-wing rags like NewsMax. Apparently fact checking by its columnists is considered an optional activity.

this has being the problem with Hillary Clinton Camp, they overreach, and does make errors that come back and make the central issue about them instead of About Obama

I wrote Kristol this morning wondering why he so blithely labelled the Pastor's comments as anti-American. I suggested that getting up in the public square to complain about some aspect of our society, albeit using the words "Damn America" for emphasis is very American. Rather, Kristol's labels and not defending the right to make speech is the true definition of anti-americanism. Although I didnt ask Kristol, I would have no doubt that his Rabbi has sermonized about the anti-Semitism one finds in our society and while probably not using the rhetoric popular in black churches, maybe questioning what our nations leaders are doing to quell that racist behaviour.
We know what is going on. Kristol is happy to bring Obama down a notch with this latest media generated "issue".
Has anyone taped the sermons of McCain's Pastor?

If the NYT had any standards whatsoever these days, this would be a firing offense by Kristol. But notice that I said "if".

I think the worst part isn't even that he USED Newsmax. But rather, that he didn't even CITE that it was his source. Saying that his source is "a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry" is very different from saying "Ronald Kessler from Newsmax". He's making it sound like a legitimate story when it might as well have come from the National Enquirer. What a tool.

When I initially read the story, I was dumbfounded that a journalist had been present during the service in question and confirmed Obama was present. I thought to myself, Howard Fineman? Michael Gerson? Someone like that, but then to learn that it was Newsmax, I was stunned, angered, and researched further to find out that the story in question was entirely fiction!

You are quite right Anna. By not clearly sourcing his quote, he's being disingenuous, and leaving the impression that the story is factually true. I second your "what a tool" comment.

Does Kristol expect Obama to walk out of his church in protest because his preacher says something controversial? If he does, then he is a moron who doesn't understand church, plain and simple.

Has anybody reputable confirmed Wright's use of the phrase “United States of White America”? If searched for minus the use of the word "routinely" from worldnetdaily's story, hits concerning Wright drop considerably.

Since when does Newsmax have reporters? This isn't snark. I'd say the chances of a Newsmax "reporter" being in the pew with Obama is about as high as McCain's chances of surviving a walk through that market in Iraq without any protection. And aren't services held in the morning? Is Obama superman? Does he have the power to reverse the rotation of the earth and turn back time? Someone tell Kristol to stop sockpuppeting as Kefa. It's embarrasing.

To Kristol's audience it is true, and saying that Obama wasn't there is a lie. The fact that Obama is proven to have not been there is entirely irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but isn't this an illegal war fought because of lies and for oil money? Even if Obama had been there and heard this, what is there to object about in these assertions. They're true--even if "thundered."

So it's supposed to be a big deal that Wright said:

1) America is racist, and
2) The Iraq war is wrong, and an example of American arrogance.

I mean, shit. The pastor at the (white) UCC church I went to during high school said that stuff all the time. I guess I'd better not run for public office.

Look, I'm part Irish. If an Irish priest got up in front of the congregation and complained about the treatment of Irish boys, do you think Kristol would cite it as some kind of damning evidence? How about Italians or Greeks?

I think not. It's not a hit piece, its a race bating piece. Obama is just an uppity n****r. That's what Kristol is saying.

I want a list of the leading Republican figures' appearances at their church's cross checked against a list of sermons or Bible readings denigrating women, Jews, Catholics, etc.

I think we should use the evidence standard of the Administration. Everything Rev. Wright says is true unless you can disprove it without a doubt.

Remember, the 'fact-based universe' is passe.

The more I read about the inflammatory statements, including the teeniest bit of context (not even a full sermon or service), the more I say "Ummmmmm....is this not a point a lot of people have been making for some time?" Consider:

Young African-American men”
Well, not just them--the army has other races and genders--but they're certainly included in disproportionate numbers.

were “dying for nothing.”
"How do you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake?" A major point of Obama's campaign has been that this war was a bad idea, making our situation with Islamic terror and its root causes even worse. The construction that our soldiers will continue to die over there until Bush and Cheney look right rather than wrong is hardly original.

The “illegal war,” he shouted, was “based on Bush’s lies”
Well, I don't think it's illegal. I do think we've all agreed that there was a disgraceful amount of massaging of facts and hiding of inconvenient facts and exagerating of marginal intelligence. ie lies.

and is being “fought for oil money.”
Anyone remember the start of the war? Just after victory, when Sen Clinton severely annoyed me as one of the politicians arguing that we (the US) should agree with ourselves (the provisional authority in Iraq) to loan Iraq reconstruction money to be paid out of oil revenues (by Iraqis)? And supporters of the war were saying, with Iraq's oil wealth, this war could be a net economic gain? Anyone?


This seems a lot like the "slander" that 9/11 was caused by our foreign policy, which in the reality-based community seems self-evident: that's why they say they attacked us. I don't think the attacks were justified--never that--but the case that we were sitting at home minding our own business when these people attacked us for no reason is silly and can't be used as the basis for any sound future policy. "We should support Israel." Ok, I agree. "However, this will have no impact in the Arab World's view of our country and values." WHAT? Every foreign policy decision will have pluses and minuses, groups that approve and groups that disapprove. If the basis is going to be "all our foreign policy flows from our being very nice, well-intentioned people, and thus cannot have any negative impact" I want off now. I'm all too reminded of the administration's evident belief that all its actions in the Arab world would be ignored by the people there if Karen Hughes pulled together a nice advertisement.

My guess is that the NY Times is so dug in on Kristol that it'll take a lot to get them to fire him. I trust that they WILL print a correction. But Kristol shouldn't be able to skate by blaming some fact-checker. This is vintage Kristol, pure and simple. I'm still amazed the Times hired him.

I'm also amazed that a few controversial remarks -- very few, taken in the context of 30-plus years of preaching -- from Rev. Wright have caused so many people to go crazy and call for Obama's head. By all accounts I've read, Trinity has done outstanding work for its community and beyond. But a few comments taken completely out of context have caused such an incredible stir. And frankly, I don't see Wright as being so far off with his comments. And I sure don't see anything "anti-American" in trying to get your country to do better.

Sadly, I'm starting to wonder whether Obama will be able to recover from this. I heard Scarborough this morning saying how terrible it is for Obama that the new pastor said something yesterday about the church being persecuted. Why is that terrible for Obama? Isn't it true? And wasn't this the same Joe Scarborough who was saying last week that we needed to look at Ferraro's comments to see whether what she was saying was true? Why is there such a double standard? Hell, I don't even attend the church (or any church) and I'm angry for them.

Rev. Wright is outspoken, says whatever he is thinking, which may not be what people want to hear, and doesn't always agree with the powers that be. That makes him a "Maverick."

Okay.

I'm not sure where white America has been the last 200 years but let me give you a refresher.

1. Blacks were brought over from Africa as slaves in chains, were 'owned' by white colonists, and were treated as property.
2. They were finally afforded legal rights in 1962 amid lynchings, riots, and violence aimed AT THEM because they wanted equal rights. The legislation didn't turn things overnight...it was, afterall, just legislation.
3. When they were intergrated into schools they were threatened by the National Guard (in Alabama) or had rocks tossed at their buses (in Boston). These were kids who were terrorized...not adults.

And anyone can wonder why some black people speak with inflamatory rhetoric, the same rhetoric that white people have used against Arabs since 911? Shocking! Stunning!

Hey all you Ron Paul supporters...you shrugged off the racist articles in HIS newsletter
Hey all you McCain supporters...you allowed his religious supporters to attack other religions, suggest strongly that America is being punished by God for it's immoral behavior.
Hey Mitt Romney supporters...his church didn't fully recognize blacks until 1977.

Stop flipping the script.....was he there? Taking the Axelrods word for gospel is not gonna stop the drip, drip, drip. You goofs are in a state of denial. Was he there? Are there pics??? If there are he is toast.

er ... wasn't Kristol's magazine,THE WEEKLY STANDARD, the one who led the charge to "out" Private Beauchamp, to "disprove" him, and to publicly horsewhip and humiliate The New Republic for running a story that they claimed wasn't "factual"?

Wasn't STANDARD Online Editor (and Kristol employee) Michael Goldfarb the one who insisted on *personally* carrying the story of the Army's "investigation" to the New York Times and the Washington Post?

Now, if Kristol's magazine can do everything they can to destroy TNR (claiming another "Stephen Glass" type "fabulist") and a soldier serving in combat in Iraq, then why should Kristol get a pass?

I mean nobody screamed louder last summer about "fact checking" than Kristol's Murdoch-owned, money-losing WEEKLY STANDARD.

Hoist him by his own petard, I say.

Don't dismiss this. If it's enough for his minions to try and destroy an Army private and TNR Editor Franklin Foer, then obviously the same fate should await Kristol -- by his own, implicit, weakly "standard"s.

"In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked," posted Zach.

Bill Kristol is listed as the editor of the Weekly Standard. One of the primary jobs of an editor is to ensure the journalistic integrity of the news and its reporters. Even though Kristol is writing for the Times as a columnist, one would think that the habit of fact checking sources before making an assertion of a fact would carry over.

This episode merely underscores what people have been saying about publications like the Weekly Standard, Newsmax, the Drudge Report and Fox News. It's basically interested in smearing and propaganda—not real news buttressed by basic journalistic standards.

I read that Kessler article and when i saw "Newsmax" mentioned i totally disregarded everything that was stated.
Kristol should have been as smart, but what do i know, i don't right op-eds for the NYTimes.

This is the right wing MSM playing 'catch out'.

I don't think Barack Obama said he 'never' heard Wright say anything controversial. I thought he said he didn't hear the clip shown on the MSM.

Some people need to get a life!

Some of what Wright says I'd agree with and think it applies to my country too - UK.

I'm a forty six year old white woman.

People like Kristol like things just the way they are....

"In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked," posted Zach.

Bill Kristol is listed as the editor of the Weekly Standard. One of the primary jobs of an editor is to ensure the journalistic integrity of the news and its reporters. Even though Kristol is writing for the Times as a columnist, one would think that the habit of fact checking sources before making an assertion of a fact would carry over.

This episode merely underscores what people have been saying about publications like the Weekly Standard, Newsmax, the Drudge Report and Fox News. It's basically interested in smearing and propaganda—not real news buttressed by basic journalistic standards.

Mr. Kristol is hardly a good moral barometer and he misses the sad political and moral truth of this story. The problem is not that Mr. Obama was a member of the Reverend Wright’s church or that he may have attended services where the Reverend Wright condemned America's racism. The problem with Mr. Obama is that he didn't defend his friend and pastor.

Why has no one asked the obvious questions: Would the Reverend Wright story be a story if after 9/11 he had simply echoed the white evangelical clergy who back John McCain, George Bush and the Republican party? If he had blamed homosexuals, secularism and abortion for the carnage of 9/11 like Jerry Falwell and his Southern Baptist Convention colleagues did, would we be discussing this?

The sad truth is that the Reverend Wright is right. Where his white brethren conjured magical links between personal morality and cataclysmic events, the Reverend Wright stated what any mid-level CIA hack would agree to: there are negative consequences to American foreign policy and economic exploitation. The good news that comes with the Reverend Wright’s message is that we can change our foreign and economic policies.

Sometimes God's ways are not so mysterious as the right wing evangelicals would have us believe. Where their magical thinking renders us powerless to control our fate except through the ritual practices of ritual moral purification, the Reverend Wright stays true to the prophetic tradition, speaks truth to power and demands that those who wield power change and act to achieve God's justice. Whereas the false prophecy of the religious right renders us powerless and waiting for the rapture, the Reverend Wright calls upon us to take up our cross and make God’s kingdom a reality.

The promise of Mr. Obama's campaign is inseparable from the Reverend Wright's message of prophetic change. We are not powerless, we can change and we are called to seek and work for justice in an unjust world. Mr. Obama should state clearly and without apology that he shares his pastor's commitment to social justice and change, even if he is not as provocative in the way he states it.

"In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked," posted Zach.

Bill Kristol is listed as the editor of the Weekly Standard. One of the primary jobs of an editor is to ensure the journalistic integrity of the news and its reporters. Even though Kristol is writing for the Times as a columnist, one would think that the habit of fact checking sources before making an assertion of a fact would carry over.

This episode merely underscores what people have been saying about publications like the Weekly Standard, Newsmax, the Drudge Report and Fox News. It's basically interested in smearing and propaganda—not real news buttressed by basic journalistic standards.

NYT gets it WRONG AGAIN! FIRST McCain, NOW Obama...MEDIA....Lay off the SMEAR ATTEMPTS and you won't find yourselves in the ditch. ON WITH THE ISSUES!

Well, that worked out well for Kristol. He got his smear in, and no skin off his nose if there's a correction.

Evil f*ckers.

Hey Kefa, any proof or link, or just another baseless accusation?

rhetorical question, right?

I think this is another example of how "group think" influences people to reach conclusions that are untrue.

It's also one more example of sloppy journalism.

Depressing.

Neocons like Kristol often care little about facts. They know that just by saying something, they will make it so in the minds of many. That is why it is appalling for a publication such as the New York Times to allow him to spread his disinformation.

The media has attempted on many occasions to discredit Mr. Obama. I didn't stop going to the Catholic Church because of a priest racist or unamerican remarks made by a priest. I didn't stop going to church because of all of the sexual abuse that occur plus the convenient cover up.
Why should Obama leave his church.
The President of the US has been unamerican by lying to the American people and putting us in harm's way. Has he resigned?

The media is so bias, they don't know how to report fairly, he should be fired for not checking out his story.

In the Kristol NeoCon world, the more WRONG you are about things the more esteem you get.

Kristol wrote: "But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22."

This is factually correct. That is Kessler's claim, not Kristol's claim. Kessler may have been wrong, but Kristol was not.

Why check with the Obama Campaign? They are having their own problems with the facts. The LA Times blog pointed out that the campaign initially claimed Wright was not at the Obama campaign kickoff because of bad weather. They later admitted under questioning that Wright was told not to come because he was too controversial. How could they know he was so controversial when Obama himself said he had no idea of Wright's rhetoric until last week?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/throughout-his.html

Sounds like Obama is caught in his own web of lies. Kristol was just passing on what somebody else said.

THS,

The reporter mentions being at the service on a "Sabbath morning." TUCC has Sunday services at 7.30 and 11.00 AM. A flight from Chicago to Miami takes three hours on the clock (only two really, but there's a time change). Call it four hours travel time counting to and from airports, and that's best-case-scenario. Obama was scheduled at a rally in Miami at 1.30 PM on that day. So if you assume the service is a couple of hours, and it would be hard for a presidential candidate to get in and out superfast, it's quite a stretch. Moreover, Chicago magazine happened to have run an article on Obama's campaign travel that week and it seems that he flew to Miami from Iowa, not Chicago:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2007/Wheres-Obama/

This whole wright blowout always smelled to me a Neocon hit job and that has been confirmed true.

Surprise !
Bill Kristol is lying !!
Where's the news there ?

Bill Kristol, along with Hillary Clinton and John McCain supported the Iraq war that Rev. Wright is criticizing.

Rev. Wright's ciriticism of the Iraq War is NOT off target or out of bounds.

This was an illegal war, built on lies.
Lies about WMDs, al Queda and anthrax.

It was an arrogant action by the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Clinton 'axis of evil'

African Americans are bearing a disproportionate load of the suffering and death.

A definition of “Groupthink”

“Groupthink” occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”. Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.

"...A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making."

DaMav,

Obama never claimed that the first he heard of Wright's controversial statements was last week. He says in his recent post: "When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments."

No contradiction.

Attack artists using misleading "facts" will probably not only continue but proliferate as we approach the election. Did he deliberately do that in the piece in question? Only he knows.

In my defense, now, I'm not saying that Kristol isn't a fuck-up and didn't make an obvious mistake, just that the NY Times Op-Ed editorial staff fucked up a lot worse. Kristol trolls them with questionably sourced material and they get hammered, Kristol helps reinforce the already running narrative that the Time has... issues... with journalistic integrity. Works out just fine for him since the buck doesn't stop with him when it comes to sourcing his Op-Eds at the Times.

DaMav: Kristol wrote: "But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22."

This is factually correct. That is Kessler's claim, not Kristol's claim. Kessler may have been wrong, but Kristol was not.

This is the standard used by tabloid journalists.

Pleeease.

It's not Kristol's fault. He can't help that news organizations continue to hire him. I blame the NYT who apparently does not have a quality control system or employment standards.

Mark, where's the prejudicial error? Kristol says that a journalist claims that Obama was in the pews on a given date. That's true: the journalist claimed it. That it was falsified is a snafu, not prejudicial error, a fortiori since the very next sentence points out that it misses the forest for the trees to focus on one particular sermon: whether Obama was present or not on that day, says Kristol, "[i]n any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain."

Simon.

Your logic does not hold water.

Kristol was using the example as a "supporting argument" for his "conclusion" that "....the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain."

Since the conclusion is not supported by any facts, I would definitely consider this a prejudicial error. C'mon!

That's what Kristol gets for relying on Newsmax for his news.

So this is the depths to which the Times has sunk. A Times columnist relying on a bunch of crackpots as his news source.

Simon,

Sure, if the facts don't fit your version of reality, just posit a hypothetical that does.

Give me a break.

Stay focused on important issues. It's sad that Obama is forced to run against Hillary, the Republicans, the DNC (king of the rules change).....and even the media. But through it all....he maintains strength, class and Presidential calm.

Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org (A Multi-Racial Organization)

It will be 5 years in Iraq....almost 4000 dead heros, thanks to Hill, Bush and McCain....where's Hillary's tax return....why does she keep saying she won Florida and Michigan (is she unstable)....where's the secret contributors list....what's going to happen in her on-going voter fraud trial in L.A. with Pa. Gov. Rendell, is she a true Democrat or a closet GOP? She cares nothing about the Dem Party....even endorsed McCain.....there are SOOOOOOO many questions that the media needs to be asking.....DEMAND THE FACTS.....CONTACT THE MEDIA !!!!

I don't know if the Times deserves its liberal reputation, but my hometown paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, is decisively liberal. It also employs outright nutjobs and slobs as its conservative columnists, like Katherine Kersten, who recently called a Somali school a scary Muslim school on the testimony of a witness who says he never said or believed anything of the sort.

The most innocent explanation is that the editors believe there is no such thing as a credible or intelligent conservative columnist, and that therefore hacks like Kersten and Kristol are the best there are to represent the conservative perspective.

Has the Times issued a correction yet? If not, why not?

Surprise !
Bill Kristol is lying !!
Where's the news there ?

Bill Kristol, along with Hillary Clinton and John McCain supported the Iraq war that Rev. Wright is criticizing.

Rev. Wright's ciriticism of the Iraq War is NOT off target or out of bounds.

This was an illegal war, built on lies.
Lies about WMDs, al Queda and anthrax.

It was an arrogant action by the Bush/Cheney/McCain/Clinton 'axis of evil'

African Americans are bearing a disproportionate load of the suffering and death.

Now I wonder. Might the country be better off with the cynicism of the Clintons than the conceit of Obama?

Any Democrat who considers Kristol's commentary of use forming an opinion for the primary should watch the princess bride.

But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me...

Billy is not attempting to get at the truth as much as he is trying to keep this BS in the news cycle. The longer it stays on its legs the worse it is for Obama and the chances grow that another shoe will drop. Think Paula Jones\Monica. I noticed he has nothing to say about Catholic Whores.

Simon:
"Mark, where's the prejudicial error? Kristol says that a journalist claims that Obama was in the pews on a given date. That's true: the journalist claimed it. That it was falsified is a snafu, not prejudicial error,"

This isn't about how things might or might not go down in a court of law. It's about a known lying hack, Kristol, quoting a hack from a hack news source, Newsmax, without vetting it, and then the New York Times editors allowing it to go to print. Cheap and pretentious "Lawyerly" BS like you're spouting hasn't anything to do with what came down here.

If true, too bad. Obama jumped all over the Drudge Report that the Clinton campaign was 'circulating' his 'turban' photo without checking facts.

Do you know why you don't remember hearing about any proof or verification of the charge - because they didn't do any!

AKBY writes:

Simon. Your logic does not hold water. Kristol was using the example as a "supporting argument" for his "conclusion" that "....the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain. Since the conclusion is not supported by any facts, I would definitely consider this a prejudicial error. C'mon!
I understand how your reasoning holds given a particular reading of that paragraph, but respectfully, I think your reading is unsustainable. I would readily agree with you that a conclusion resting on Kessler's claim would be flawed, and thus the error prejudicial. However, Kristol does not use Kessler's claim to support the conclusion that "given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain." Rather, he uses the assertion that, "given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain" to cabin Kessler's claim. One could read that last sentence to cabin Kessler's claim, or even to sideline it, but not, I think, as a conclusion stemming from the premise of Kessler's claim.

What I learned from reading parts of Kristol's piece (which I usually skip when reading the Times):

Barak Obama goes to church. Do the other candidates go to church?

Kristol has evidently studied Rev. Wright's life in detail, how else could he know about Wright's "worldview". Oh, yeah, he saw it on youtube!

Since they can't get damning evidence on Obama, they're trying to bury him with non-evidence of someone he knows. Is it time to bring up the Keating 5 and the Rodham brothers?

The really interesting thing is imagine how often we will hear this basic "fact" missstated by the press today and onward. Always interesting how the original gets all the press, but the correction (if there is one) will get almost no press.

So-o-o-o-o, the ONLY form of "journalism" being practiced in the United States - and the majority form elsewhere - is tabloid journalism. Never mind the facts, get a scandalous headline up and cobble up a story to justify it. If caught and debunked, weasel out of it by claiming it's just what somebody else said.

But, really, when the claim is something so blatantly fraudulent that anyone with a little knowledge can thoroughly debunk it, that's not just low or no standards, that's utter incompetence.

The New York Times is now LESS reliable than the defunct Weekly World News. And if it doesn't watch out, it may find itself defunct too.

Simon.

Okay, following you. Then what "value" did the Kessler statement provide for his article/argument? Why include it?

It definitely seems to, at the very least, lend support to the IDEA that Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things.

It is misleading the reader by including it, and because it is factually incorrect, it definitely fits the definition of a "prejudicial error".

People. One, this is America where we do not kick open the doors of a church and judge whether or not comments are favorable to the state(I thought that was only done in Russia and some extreme Muslim states)but allow for stuff like free speech, the right to assemble and worship God. Second, the black church experience is one based primarily on strict bible inerrancy(which most folks who claim to be Christians don't ascribe to) juxtaposed or in relation to the black experience. To really understand it you have to spend more time than it takes to write a news story. Third, where was all of this animus when Billy Graham whom I respect and admire made the most aggriegious anti-Semitic statements ever on tape. Why wasn't Bill Clinton and all the other presidents Reagan, Ford etc who slammed for having their relationship with him. Finally, the Bible says be ye angry and sin not. Can't we be angry with America and love it just the same. Think about it. There was nothing Dr. Wright said that was a lie. It was the tone and the truth that offends our sensibilities. Think about it.

People. One, this is America where we do not kick open the doors of a church and judge whether or not comments are favorable to the state(I thought that was only done in Russia and some extreme Muslim states)but allow for stuff like free speech, the right to assemble and worship God. Second, the black church experience is one based primarily on strict bible inerrancy(which most folks who claim to be Christians don't ascribe to) juxtaposed or in relation to the black experience. To really understand it you have to spend more time than it takes to write a news story. Third, where was all of this animus when Billy Graham whom I respect and admire made the most aggriegious anti-Semitic statements ever on tape. Why wasn't Bill Clinton and all the other presidents Reagan, Ford etc who slammed for having their relationship with him. Finally, the Bible says be ye angry and sin not. Can't we be angry with America and love it just the same. Think about it. There was nothing Dr. Wright said that was a lie. It was the tone and the truth that offends our sensibilities. Think about it.

People. One, this is America where we do not kick open the doors of a church and judge whether or not comments are favorable to the state(I thought that was only done in Russia and some extreme Muslim states)but allow for stuff like free speech, the right to assemble and worship God. Second, the black church experience is one based primarily on strict bible inerrancy(which most folks who claim to be Christians don't ascribe to) juxtaposed or in relation to the black experience. To really understand it you have to spend more time than it takes to write a news story. Third, where was all of this animus when Billy Graham whom I respect and admire made the most aggriegious anti-Semitic statements ever on tape. Why wasn't Bill Clinton and all the other presidents Reagan, Ford etc who counted him as their spiritual advisor slammed for having their relationship with him. Finally, the Bible says be ye angry and sin not. Can't we be angry with America and love it just the same. Think about it. There was nothing Dr. Wright said that was a lie. It was the tone and the truth that offends our sensibilities. Think about it.

================
SATURDAY JULY 21, 2007
================
Obama Says He Would Walk Picket Line
From: AP Online Date: July 21, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democrat Barack Obama is telling union activists he would walk a picket line as president if organized labor helps elect him in 2008.

The Illinois senator also criticized President Bush's policies toward working people.

`We are facing a Washington that has thrown open its doors to the most anti-union, anti-worker forces we've seen in generations," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery Saturday night. "What we need to make real today is the idea that in this country we value the labor of every American."

Obama was scheduled to speak to Iowa's largest union representing more than 20,000 state workers."
================

SUNDAY, JULY 22, 2007
================
Full Size JPG (760 KB)
MIAMI BEACH, FL - JULY 22: Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama shakes hands with well-wishers at the National Council of La Raza conference July 22, 2007 in Miami Beach, Florida. Barack, a U.S. senator from Illinois, was to speak to the group, which represents the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Copyright (c) 2007 Getty Images
================

================
Top Democrats Woo Hispanic Voters
From: AP Online Date: July 22, 2007

MIAMI BEACH, Fla. - As they competed Sunday to woo Hispanic voters, Hillary Clinton touted her personal connection to the community while Barack Obama emphasized the intertwined struggles of black and Hispanic Americans.

Because their platforms are so similar - both support a path to legalization for illegal immigrants, improved border security and universal health care and preschool - the way Clinton and Obama approach Hispanic voters will probably be key in the primary season.

The candidates spoke before roughly 2,000 Hispanic educators, activists and community and business leaders at the annual conference of the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights organization, the National Council of La Raza, in Miami Beach. [...] Obama was introduced with his campaign's reggaeton theme song, a genre that blends Latin and hip hop beats. He cut a more formal presence, standing behind a podium in a dark suit and speaking directly to the crowd before taking questions.
================

FLYING TIME Des Moines to Miami Beach: Four (4) Hours Minimum

This is somewhat OT, but it's a question that's been nagging me since this whole Wright "controversy" started. Why isn't anyone making a big deal of the fact that Hillary Clinton hasn't disassociated herself from Bill Clinton, who has been proven to be a perjurer and a philanderer? The CW on Obama goes that the Wright situation differs from the Ferraro situation because Obama "chose" his pastor and his church, while the Clinton campaign didn't "choose" Ferraro.

But Hillary clearly "chose" Bill, and she continues to stick with him despite his apparent lack of ethics.

I'm not really saying that Hillary is required to leave Bill. I'm using that example to show how ridiculous this whole thing is. If Trinity's SOLE message were that America is bad, then I might have a problem with the fact that Obama goes there. But if Wright's comments (which, again, I don't see as being so far out of line) are just a small part of what the church does, how can we condemn Obama for having chosen to associate with it? (Just as, presumably, Bill Clinton has presumably done more in the years of the Clintons' marriage than commit adultery.)

Whats the big deal? Do people forget so quickly the comments coming out of the mouths of rightwing nuts like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Dobson, etc? All who backed up the big lies that came out of this administration. All of them with their bigoted views on race, sexuality, marriage,etc.
What do they preach about? That if you don't vote republican, you'll surely burn in hell.
Rev. Wright's comments were right on target. It's just that the lying liars and their friends have been lying so long, they believe themselves. They are so afraid of losing power and wealth, they'll say anything.
also, to the NYT, did you hire Kristol to lose your loyal readers or to make bigger profits? Maybe Murdoch or Blackwater secretly owns you, too.

kefa,
The speech at the La Raza conference in Miami Beach was at 1pm. He took Q&A afterwards. It's a 3 hour flight from Chicago to Miami so it's physically impossible for him to have been in Chicago for the morning service given the time change - it's basically 4 hours to go from Chicago (CDT) to Miami (EDT). And he would have returned to Chicago no earlier than 8pm, long after the evening service ends at 7pm. There's even a Washington Times story describing the conference. He really was there and he spoke for a while - with Clinton.

No, it's impossible for Obama to be in church in Chicago on July 22, 2007. The story is a total lie put out by a right-wing extremist website and Bill Kristol quoted it as fact without backing it up.

Kristol should be fired for this.

I have been continually surprised at how Obama has come through in the clutch when things have gone wrong in the past with his campaign.

Ronald Kessler is one of those people who were smearing McCain and claiming Mitt Romney as the heir to Reagan conservatism! Speaking of which, what happened to Kessler? I always thought he was a pretty sound journalist in the past...

I just checked NYT, and the column's gone. Maybe it's being updated?

I'm still trying to figure out what remarks made by Obama's minister have to do with Obama?

I just checked NYT, and it's there, unchanged. Good grief.

My God. The United States of America has always obstensibly been a free state where the right of citizens to criticize the government is not only a right but an obligation. The right to dissent is the essential key to maintaining our freedom and rights. America never was meant to be a fascist, nationalist state where criticizm of the powers that be is considered treason. But that is where the right-wing has tried to drive this country for decades now. There is no one more America-hating in our day and age than people like Kristol and Cheney and thier ilk.
Thank God Obama is running. We have yet another opportunity to get all this hateful scum out on the table and make a little more progress toward remedying the evil racism that lives on in our country.

I put up a story on Daily Kos with contact information to correct this earlier today when I did my own research.

I don't think Kristol understands the new dynamics of information in the 21st century. Everything is out there these days and there are a lot of bored people who are willing to fact check if they think that someone made a mistake.

I think they're going to push and push and push and push this thing and the backlash will start by Thursday or Friday. Posting false information that's easily checkable is just the start.

Kristol writes that Kessler claims something. What's wrong about that?

What is this now, factual errors in five of his last seven columns? Anyone else at the Times turns in crap with that kind of a streak would be suspended at best, fired at worst. But since Kristol is at least succeeding in generating talk about the Times, the marketing people are thrilled. But they've sold their journalistic souls to do it.

The republican attack machine doesn't care if it is true. They know that the initial story is the only one many people will hear or read. They know about any retraction or correction. So to those people the lie becomes fact. The attack works whether it is true or not.

Let's say the dates were wrong.....if Obama still heard it in the pews on another date does it make it right.....in your Obamarules mind I guess it does. So as long as there is so kind of wiggle room, any kind of wiggle room it make it right. Well in most of America this won't play....it won't work...it won't sell. Maybe in the blog world of Obama it does but in the living rooms of the USA you can bet your ass it won't. Peaceout. He's toast. Bet your ass on it he's done. We need to find someone else if we're to get the White House.

Sorry, my post was meant to say that many people WON'T know about a retraction or correction.

hmm, eve, you're right, the direct link still works. but there's no reference to it on the front page of the NYT.

Bill Kristol is purposely being decietful here. Look at the wording he uses. Ronald Kessler plays the strawman while Kristol further diseminates his lies..
This almost looks orchestrated by Kessler and Kristol. And it would not surprise me to find out that it was. In which case it is high time for the New York Times to give Mr. Kristol the boot.

that previous comment was directed at Jen. I'm having a bad case of the Mondays, clearly.

Kristol was sloppy. He didn't need to quote Kessler. It was an error that I believe he wishes he could take back.

His larger point is that Obama has been attending Wright's sermons for years and knows the controversial/radical language Wright uses.

People who read blogs on the Atlantic may see nothing wrong or inaccurate with such views.

Soccer moms, blue collar workers, and senior citizens may feel differently about Wright's sizzling rhetoric.

Obama has a problem. The Dems. have an even bigger problem.

Somewhere Karl Rove is smiling.

Bert McDougal,

Good point. I heard someone say your mama wears combat boots.

Obama is a con - waiting until he was the front runner to release his 2006 earmarks - one of which benefited his wife's employer - resulting in a hefty raise for her.

Oh- and waiting until he was the front runner to meet with Chicago reporters to answer questions about Rezko - after refusing to meet with them for months.

Obama lied about Rezko from the gitgo. A year ago, Obama claimed he barely knew Rezko.

Obama/Wright08

Now John Edwards is gonna speak out..from this Sunday...The Chris Matthews Show.


MATTHEWS: Richard Stengel?

Mr. STENGEL: John Edwards. Senator John Edwards--remember him?--who's been
conspicuously silent since he dropped out of the race, will endorse a
Democratic candidate probably before North Carolina, certainly before North
Carolina, possible before Pennsylvania. And our own Mark Halpern on the page
says it's going to be Senator Hillary Clinton.

I don't suppose it's meaningful that "kefa" (or "kaffa") is the South African White Apartheid/Supremacist equivalent of "n*gg*r"?

If you've ever hung out with expat S.African Whites, you'll know what an ugly term it is.

(I'm sure that "kefa" will claim some Aramaic etymology. Yeah. Right. Sure.)

Just saying.

There has been a clarification regarding whether or not Obama attended a sermon on 7/22 on Newsmax.com. Apparently, sometime in July 2007, Obama did attend a sermon where the anti-American rhetoric was preached by Rev. Wright. Obama was there with his Secret Service detail. The facts are correct but the actual date may have been wrong. Also, with the times of the sermons, it was quite possible for Obama to attend the sermon before or after his trip to Miami on 7/22. Obama needs to step up and admit that in the 20 years of knowing Rev. Wright, he was aware of his viewpoints. How could he not know? For those of you who believe this to be a non-issue, it comes down to Obama's judgment and candor. Is he a liar or an idiot or like every other politician?

There has been a clarification regarding whether or not Obama attended a sermon on 7/22 on Newsmax.com. Apparently, sometime in July 2007, Obama did attend a sermon where the anti-American rhetoric was preached by Rev. Wright. Obama was there with his Secret Service detail. The facts are correct but the actual date may have been wrong. Also, with the times of the sermons, it was quite possible for Obama to attend the sermon before or after his trip to Miami on 7/22. Obama needs to step up and admit that in the 20 years of knowing Rev. Wright, he was aware of his viewpoints. How could he not know? For those of you who believe this to be a non-issue, it comes down to Obama's judgment and candor. Is he a liar or an idiot or like every other politician?

AKBY,
I suppose two responses. The flip response is that when you're paid by the word, you pad pad pad. ;) If it's faintly relevant and can contribute to the flow, you throw it in there, which is exactly why that filler about two minor celebrities holding a fund raiser is in there too. The more serious response is that it fits into the flow of the piece. Kristol says that Obama's not been candid in saying that he's never heard the statements attributed to Wright (¶3). He argues that it's certainly possible that Obama didn't hear a particular sermon in 2003 (¶4), but that he may have heard one in 2007 (that's the Kessler attribution in ¶5, and it's an error), and that in any case, the issue isn't whether Obama was present for any given sermon, but rather, whether it's credible for Obama to say that he was oblivious to the fact that Wright said such things. (Which is separate from the issue of whether Obama agrees with those things.) We can talk about whether that's a credible thesis - I've suggested elsewhere that Obama's claim stands or falls on how central to the church's message the more drooling of Wright's comments have been - but nevertheless, I do think it's clear that Kristol's argument is that it misses the point to focus on any one particular sermon that Obama may or may not have been present for. I just don't agree that the Kessler attribution can be seen as supporting rather than simply preceding the assertion in the last sentence of ¶5 when that last sentence expressly repudiates it.

I'm not saying it isn't an error. It is. But it's minor, and it's not prejudicial. I imagine that if Kristol were going to write a retraction, it would read something like this: "Kessler was wrong about whether Obama was present at a sermon given 7/22/07. But as my next sentence pointed out, the issue isn't whether Obama was present on any particular day, but the centrality vel non of the apparent worldview of Wright to his church's message."

As an Edwards supporter, during the past few weeks I've re-evaluated my learned Hillary-hate - and found it to be primarily from Obamabots and Repubs.
Also Obama's race-baiting - and then accusing the Clintons of being "racists" - and Obamabots finding a racist motive in every statement of those not supporting Obama - is a big turn off.

Because of our current economic crisis - "hope" just won't do.
We need Experience - not an Experiment - and we're voting for Hillary in NC.

As an Edwards supporter, during the past few weeks I've re-evaluated my learned Hillary-hate - and found it to be primarily from Obamabots and Repubs.
Also Obama's race-baiting - and then accusing the Clintons of being "racists" - and Obamabots finding a racist motive in every statement of those not supporting Obama - is a big turn off.

Because of our current economic crisis - "hope" just won't do.
We need Experience - not an Experiment - and we're voting for Hillary in NC.

The NYT has taken the link to Kristoff's story off the front page of the web site. So no doubt they're embarassed, not that it matters. They have to sell papers and don't want the WSJ to edge in on their turf!

Btw, this should point up the obvious to the Obama campaign in any case. They have to come forth and admit that Obama and his wife have indeed heard controversial remarks from the pastor that they haven't always agreed with. Even if not as bad as the ones that have been quoted- about 9/11, the HIV virus and God damn America, etc.- people will still want to know about it, and won't believe that nothing remotely controversial ever came up. They will have to explain why hearing such things didn't cause them to leave the church, but I think so long as the comments weren't as intense as the ones we've heard, and in the context of Obama's conversion and the degree to which the spiritual and political are and should be separate, that such an explanation would be reasonable.

If the speeches of the the heads of the church the candidates attend is a criteria, then where's the analysis of the speeches of McCain and Hillary's churches. Or is that just a criteria for Obama? He should be judged by his own words and his own positions.

What's worse? Listening to a racist speech by Wright or speaking to a racist organization like La Raza?

After reading Michael Ramirez's comment, I find myself shaking my head at how much damage politicians like Karl Rove have done to America's sense of right and wrong, integrity, and common decency.

Barack Obama was defamed by a NewsMax article and William Kristol, who has repeatedly been caught making gaffes and falsehoods. Marc Ambinder points out the FACT that Kristol's article has an untruth and Ambinder is criticized.

How is that wrong? That has nothing to do with endorsing Obama as much as it does reporting falsehoods.

The New York Times should have fact checked the story. It did not do so even though since Kristol has arrived at the Times several of his stories have been found to contain falsehoods.

Moreover, even though the falsehood has been exposed, the Times has not included a correction or pulled the article.

This is a matter of good journalism, ethics, and editorial decision-making. Not to examine these facts and question the motivations of Kristol and the Times would be wrong.

The article below by Frank Schaeffer appeared on Huff Post 3/16/08

"When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Email
Print
Comments
Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.


And this:


In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....


Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.

Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html )

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days."

Surrogates of John Edwards have said he believes Obama is too inexperienced to be president.
Exactly!

Most super delegates and endorsers of Obama cite his ability to attract a big crowd - but mention NOTHING about substance.

Obama is a media creation and money maker for the media, newspapers, reps, and the Dem Party establishment endorsing him.

Quantity over Quality.
No thanks!

All you Hillary-ites call it race baiting when you get called on the racist talk or behavior coming from Hill-Billy campaign operatives. This is classic neocon behavior. Trashing the messenger. Voting for Hillary is like voting for McCain. Save yourself the trouble and just wait till November 2008 and vote for the Republicans.
She had a unfavorable appeal BEFORE this primary season started and it will only grow afterwards.
She is an angry self entitled feminist. She and John Edwards will make a real appealing team. That is what he has been waiting for. Talk about secrets and lies. They both have it in spades.

I see a lot of Wright / Obama apologists here. Don't be rediculous. You simply CAN NOT have a close spiritual advisor to the president of the united states shouting "God Damn America." That just doesn't fly!!

Besides, I noticed how so many of you are ignoring Obama's lies and giving him a HUGE PASS on both his relationships with Wright and Resko. Obama is the worst option for president - He won't EVER get my vote.

Well the problem for Obama is that there is an eyewitness reporter who attended the service that day and said he was there.

Someone is lying. Probably Obama, he has more to lose. He is lying hoping the issue will just go away.

Why would a reporter lie about something like this? Reporters have plenty of stories to write and risk losing everything if they make shit up.

But politicians lie all the time and get away with it.

I think Obama is lying.

Well the problem for Obama is that there is an eyewitness reporter who attended the service that day and said he was there.

Someone is lying. Probably Obama, he has more to lose. He is lying hoping the issue will just go away.

Why would a reporter lie about something like this? Reporters have plenty of stories to write and risk losing everything if they make shit up.

But politicians lie all the time and get away with it.

I think Obama is lying.

Ah leave it to another of the MoveOnmedia to fail to do their work.

Writer Jim Davis points out this morning that Wright's sermons are delivered three time every Sunday, 7:30, 11 and 6pm. Obama was only in Miami long enough to miss the 11am showing and Davis asserts the he also witness Obama and Secret Service at the July 22nd hate America sermon.

Obama's campaign is refusing comment... of course.

What happened to American journalism?

Simon:

I guess I just disagree the error is "minor"

One of the major problems I have is the statement is twice removed. Kristol was quoting Kessler who was refrencing Davis.

A comment twice removed going unchecked?

Sorry, but this goes beyond a minor error. And again, because it is factually incorrect, it unduly creates bias, which makes it a "prejudicial error".

To your point, I do think it's clear that Kristol's argument is that it misses the point to focus on any one particular sermon that Obama may or may not have been present for.

Not including any facts to support a claim is the DEFINITION of prejudicial.

I sent a email to the NY Times editorial board this morning on the "serious and respected" Bill Kristol demanding a retraction.

editorial@nytimes.com

As far as Bill Kristol not "understanding church" as someone above said he is Jewish afterall. :-)

As far as Edwards (maybe) thinking Obama is not experienced enough to be president, Edwards served how many terms in the Senate before running for president the first time? What did he do after he lost his seat? How many years of overall legislative experienced did he have (state or federal)?

If Hillary supporters were really concerned with experience they would have through all support behind the Biden or BETTER YET Bill Richardson. No one can sit with a straight face and tell me that Bill Richardson is not far more experienced than Hillary Clinton in ways that directly point to what you would do as the POTUS.

I've recently been involved in the editing of a book that's coming out in April by Michael Eric Dyson about Dr. Martin Luther King's death. After researching and editing and working with Dr. Dyson on this book, I absolutely would have been nodding along with Dr. Wright when he castigated America for jailing the young black men of this country on the "three strikes" legislation--drug laws that deem the same amount of crack and cocaine as different offences, and that have resulted in far more blacks than whites being incarcerated in this country. Kristol has walked a white path his whole life, he cannot begin to understand the complexity of Wright's message or his challenges to the government to play fair when it comes to race. Dr. King frequently used the term "sick white brothers" and other statements that might be construed as anti-American. But a large part of living in America is challenging the assumptions of our government (ie, lying our way into a senseless war), and being able to voice our disappointment either at the pulpit or the polls. I have never agreed with everything that ANYONE has said--that's simple human nature. To hold Obama's feet to the rhetorical fire of a pastor who has seen far more racial inequality and the damage--either direct or ancillary--that it has caused for his flock is shockingly poor mannered and deceitful. That the editorial board of the NY Times would publish this kind of unsupported trash is beyond despicable.

Kristol recanted:

"In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error. "

He put this in the NY Times article.

Victor:

After reading Michael Ramirez's comment, I find myself shaking my head at how much damage politicians like Karl Rove have done to America's sense of right and wrong, integrity, and common decency. Barack Obama was defamed by a NewsMax article and William Kristol, who has repeatedly been caught making gaffes and falsehoods. Marc Ambinder points out the FACT that Kristol's article has an untruth and Ambinder is criticized. How is that wrong? That has nothing to do with endorsing Obama as much as it does reporting falsehoods.

Marc's claim was that there was prejudicial error, and he's using that claim (successfully, to judge by comments here and elsewhere) to impeach Kristol's column. But there wasn't prejudicial error. Marc's using a clever rhetorical move, verbal misdirection, to sideline Kristol's point, and that's why he's being criticized.

True, Kristol noted a claim that turns out to be false; he noted that claim, however, in the context of rejecting its import. Suppose Kristol had phrased ¶¶4-5 like this: "Perhaps Obama didn't personally hear Wright’s 2003 sermon. Even he didn't hear it, and regardless of whether he has heard any specific sermon -- Ronald Kessler, for example, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22 -- the more important point is that, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain." That advances the same point that I read Kristol to be making, but it's starkly obvious that re-phrased that way, it's irrelevant to the central point whether Kessler's correct or not. And as I see it, it's not much less obvious that you can knock out Kessler's assertion without damaging the article a whit. Remove the Kessler claim, and you're left with this as a substitute for ¶¶4-5: "It certainly could be the case that Obama personally didn’t hear Wright’s 2003 sermon when he proclaimed: [yadda yadda yadda]. But given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain." That's still a coherent thought (arguably more so, but I don't get paid by the word so I'm not going to castigate journalists for filler); it may or may nor be correct, but its correctness doesn't depend on the veracity of Kessler's claim.

Marc's gambit is to tie the fate of the article in toto to the Kessler claim, and then deep six the Kessler claim, hoping that readers won't notice that the Kessler claim is minor and incidental. And it's worked: instead of arguing about Kristol's central point, y'all are getting hot under the collar about something irrelevant to that point while feeling you're successfully debunking the claim.

Kefa is the original Aramaic form for Peter...the Rock. For those who are fixated with all things racist.


Regarding Obama being in church in Chicago in the morning on July 22 and appearing that afternoon in Miami

There was time for Obama to go to church in Chicago and make it to Miami for his talk.

Obama was in Iowa the day before...so perhaps he went home to Chicago for the night on Saturday.

The first Sunday Service at Trinity is at 7:30 AM. (Central)

Obama appeared in Miami at 1:50PM (he started 20 mins late). (Eastern) http://www.hispanicmpr.com/2007/07/31/clinton-obama-appearances-highlight-of-2007-nclr-conference/


If he left church by 8:45 AM and flew from Midway by 9:10 Central, or 10:10 Eastern, could he have arrived in Miami for his 1:50 talk?

The flight time according to online flight time calculator is 2:07 at 550 MPH. Includes 15 minutes for "bias"...so actual flight time could have been less, depending on winds.
http://www.airrouting.com/scripts/tdcalc.asp

So even if he took off at 10:30 AM Eastern, he would have landed by 12:37 PM in Miami. That's more than one hour before he spoke.

It may be tight but perhaps that's how he got there.

A vast majority of Hillary supporters would rather eat glass than ever vote for your GOD Obama.

To bring it down to your level:

OBAMA NO PRESIDENT! OBAMA GO BYE-BYE!

My biggest problem is telling the Hillary supporters and the right wing nut jobs apart. Does anyone know any good rules of thumb?

I need to know cause if I hear another word about Rezko, a story which has by now been completely laid bare in excruciating detail by Obama to the satisfaction of reporters at both the Sun Times and Tribune, coming from a Hillary supporter I don't think I'll be able to contain my laughter. This from a candidate and a campaign shrouded in more secrecy than Kim Jung Il, that carries around scandals like so much confetti on New Years Eve. Wheee!!!!

Where's the money coming from? How's Bill's oppressive autocratic human rights violating buddy in Kazakstan doing? How's Vin Gupta doing? Readying up for some jail time? How did you manage to get more earmarks than any other legislator not on the Appropriations comittee when nearly your entire legislative career has been spent in the minority? Who has donated to your husband's libarary? Where are all the documents related to your time in the white house? When's Mr. Lindsay, a.k.a. your man in records, going to sign off on them, i.e, when are you going to tell them it's ok? We're waiting from some answers from the Queen of Corruption here in PA. Lets hope we get some soon...

Small joke.

I think Obama is making a mistake by not defending his preacher.

Because I actually agree with SOME of the clips that have been played on and on in the media (and this is a small portion of what the Rev. has been preaching. If you want to read the entirety of the "Audacity to Hope" sermon, click here:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/0 3/for-the-record.html


I would not have used the Rev's fiery tone, but yes, I would agree that 9/11 is a result of a wrongheaded foreign policy.

I would also agree that the U.S. has had a racist past and that we have not lived up to our potential as a democracy. I heard Goddamn America as a "shame on you" America for not living up to your Constitution, to your Declaration of Independence for all people.

Does that stem from America hate? No. It stems from love, and the anger and frustration you feel when you KNOW we can do better.

Many black people believe that the U.S. gov't has created the AIDS virus. I have heard it numerous times. Why do they believe that? Because we have had the REALITY of having the U.S. gov't infect black men with syphillis in the Tuskegee experiments.

I don't believe this, because I have not seen any evidence. But I don't rule it out entirely.

Yes, we have on occasion behaved like terrorists in Abu Ghraib, in some of the wrongdoing done in our name in Iraq. We have turned a blind eye to genocide in Africa. We have tortured, we have falsely imprisoned, we have put innocent people to death.

Yes we have.

But I still am a patriot even though I say these things.

i think the Rev. has a voice that needs to be heard.

Margaret, those are lies. You are as bad as Kristol.

Obama has always said that Rezko was his friend and he always said that he was a fundraiser. He returned the funds for the Presidental campaign and he said how much that was. Subsequently this week having tallied the amount from all the campaigns, he has released that figure to chicago Trib. He voluntarily released his earmarks. He didn't have to. He has never hid them. (btw, any reporter on capitol hill could have found out). His wife's employer is a Medical teaching hospital. How do you jump to any earmark to the it resulting in a raise to her. Yours is a disengenuous dishonest post. shame on you.

The bigger issue is he knew about this crap and either agreed with it or put up with it and it is gonna kill the parties for the White House.

Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that Wright’s comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters. In addressing the issue, Obama warned against injecting race into the campaign .


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright

Rush and the right wing are on him all day.

The Kristol story has just been updated to include a correction and apology for the false Newsmax story.

That was pretty quick.

How can you trust anything Kristol says. He says Obama was there on July 22nd proudly bobbing his head..then it turns out Obama was in an entirely different state that day. How does he explain the inconsistency?

I just find it strange we arent taking what Obama says he believes..we are taking someone elses words and then acting as if Obama said them. How strange this is. Young black people around 40 something and younger view this country much differently than older black people who experienced overt and government sponsored racism first hand.

Bill Kristol, you idiot.

Hold on a minute. The war is arguably illegal, based on lies, fought for nothing (or at least nothing close to its stated purpose), and borne disproportionately on the backs of minorities. Now that this fake war is coming undone, has it become unacceptable to make a simple observation of reality?

The esteemed Mr. Kristol should stay with what he does best! Picking his nose and eating it in front of cameras. Why doesn't the media show that little piece of Kristol diligence, rather than constantly perpetrating his endless lies? His views are not alternative conservative analysis, they are simply preposterous falsehoods intended to keep America in the "Romantic" quagmires of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Possibly, next January, he can be air dropped into downtown Baghdad, along with former President Bush, and the two of them can try to capture that adventure of danger and romance. One last try to remove that blemish of not having served when it was their turn. The one that now makes them so childishly envious of our brave men and woman fighting and dying for our Country. The utter gall of Sen. Obama to want to bring an end to such death and destruction.

And, as far as the question Mr. Kristol poses in his last sentence is concerned: yes, I would certainly prefer a "conceited Obama" rather than a 100 year McCain! But you are probably right, we all know that conceit has never once visited the political career of Sen. McCain. That sir, is as ridiculous as the Op-Ed you wrote in todays NYT.

Kristol is shilling for the Bomb Iran crowd who desperately need Hillary or McCain to win. Both Hillary and McCain have promised to use nukes on Iran. Kristol's crowd desperately needs to see Obama out of the picture. You dont hear Kristol going after McCain's Religious Right pastor supporters for using extremist rhetoric, do you?

Marc-Obama never heard a hate filled sermon by his spiritual mentor over these past 20 years! Come on! We are not that dumb.

I'm just surprised that Kristol didn't use the word 'schwartze'.

In Kristol's defense, that's a pretty honest mistake since it's not his job to make sure that every source he references wasn't later debunked.

It might not be his 'job', but it's a good sign that he won't do the barest due diligence to avoid looking like a neocon hack who phones in his pieces for silly money.

Sadly, Mr. Kristol wasn't even able to spell his apology correctly: "The Obama camapaign [sic]has provided information showing..."

Sen. Obama WAS in Chicago on July 22, 2007 according to the Washington Post:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2007/jul/22/

marbury
a british commentary on the 2008 US presidential race« righteous anger | Main | it's the economy (again), stupid »

March 15, 2008
one president in the white house

President William Jefferson Clinton has not had a good campaign:

One of the survey’s more striking findings is the diminished standing of former President Bill Clinton, whom some have seen as campaigning too aggressively for his wife — and against Obama.

More respondents in the poll view him in a negative light (45 percent) than in a positive one (42 percent). It’s a marked change from a year ago, when Clinton’s positive rating (48 percent) was higher than his negative score (35 percent).

His various misfirings and gaffes have forced voters to consider whether they really want him anywhere near the Oval Office. Certainly, should Hillary win the nomination, there's no doubt that the GOP will be loudly suggesting that it's Bill who will really be in charge in an HRC administration.

It's one of the oddities of American politics that former Presidents get to keep being called President (nobody addresses Mrs Thatcher as 'Prime Minister' any more, something which is no doubt a constant source of bewilderment and annoyance to her). Commenter Jim suggests a way for the FPOTUS to send a signal that there won't be any confusion about who's calling the shots:

I'm surprised Bill hasn't let it be known that in any potential Hilary White House he would forgo the Mr President title to be known as Mr Clinton. Shows humility and would deflect the issue.

Must be a difficult title to relinquish...

Posted at 10:58 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2856286/27122148
--------