So I hear a LOT on the interwebz and Fox News (my wife makes me watch) about Rev. Wright and Obama and how Obama should denounce Wright. So ignoring for a moment that all of the sermon snippets that we've seen have amounted to about one minute of screen time and are taken out of context, ignoring the fact that however kooky the things he has said are he has a right to say them, ignoring the fact that I haven't heard him say anything outright heretical, ignoring the fact that as a Christian Obama is under no compulsion to correct his pastor publicly, ignoring the fact that whatever his pastor believes politically has no bearing on what Obama may believe politically, ignoring the fact that one doesn't necessarily leave a church just because of political differences, ignoring the fact that the man has been there twenty years and things may not have been ever thus, ignoring all of that doesn't really leave Obama with a problem. What say you?

Obama wrote on a blog post to the Huffington Post this afternoon, categorically denouncing all of the offending remarks made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Later this evening in an interview on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Senator Obama announced that his campaign has released Rev. Wright as its spiritual adviser.

During his interview, he stated that he totally expects the Republican 527's (swift-boaters) to bring this back up in the general election. Honestly, the interesting thing about this whole fiasco is watching Clinton's and McCain's reactions, which have been surprisingly minimal.

More comments to come later this weekend.

Sharpton asks some of the same questions I've asked myself.

HT to Kansas Bob

My pastor in Greenville and I differed greatly on certain matters political and theological. Still I respected him and was a member. Now granted Rev. Wright comes across as a big old nutjob and anyone that believes that the US Government invented AIDS, was responsible for 9/11, etc. needs to check into a rubber room and thankfully Obama has come down on those things. Can we move on now media?

Well it looks like Obama may be lying about not having heard Wright's sermons. There's a lengthy article at Newsmax that says that he was there and claims that Obama would have no way NOT to know about Wright's tendencies/politics.

ht to Southcon

Written by Patrick:

Not to too strongly dispute my cohort's post, but this story was debunked the very day it came out. Bill Kristol posted on this in the Times, Monday, but had to redact it because he blatantly hoarked the information out of the NewsMax website, which is well-known to post less-than-worthy fabrications of the truth about Obama and others. NewsMax is not a "source", in as much as Michelle Malkin or Rush Limbaugh are not "sources".

Further, Olbermann's The Worst Person in the World addresses this.

...and yes, Scott used a CONSERVATIVE BLOG as his ht on this. Something akin to placing an anti-environment lobby-monger like Dirk Kempthorne to head the Dept of Interior.

Jon Favreau is Obama's chief speechwriter.

No, not that Jon Favreau.

...this one.

In order to decide who gets the super delegates Evan Bayh suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

The Times goes on to point out that:

Many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

Hmmmm.

Personally, I think Hillary should step down. It's pretty obvious that she's desperate and knows that her ship is sinking. We all know that that's probably not going to happen though. She wants a brokered convention. It's not what's best for the party, but she doesn't care about that.

I say we just leave it to the delegates' judgment. It's not cut and dried like the popular vote, the polls, number of delegates, or states won (all of which gives them to Obama), but I think that they'll all see which way the wind is blowing and make the right choice. Richardson does and hopefully Edwards does. I agree with a local radio host here that says if Edwards throws his endorsement Obama's way it's over. What say you?

Kevin Horrigan on Obama's speech from last week and the degradation of American intellectualism:

...[I]s America going to get this? Isn't this speech way too carefully constructed and nuanced? Shouldn't he have explained what he meant by "Jim Crow"? Shouldn't he have explained who William Faulkner was?

What's he doing giving this speech at 10 o'clock on a Tuesday morning? Doesn't he know about prime time? Why did he write this speech himself? Doesn't he have speechwriters and focus groups who can test this stuff? Shouldn't he be shouting and waving his arms instead of standing coolly behind a lectern and talking in measured cadence? Why isn't he pandering?

In what surely ranks as, among other things, one the boldest political gambles in modern times, Sen. Obama decided that the American people were willing to wrestle with complex ideas about the most divisive issue in nation. If it turns out he's right, it will be a signal moment in recent intellectual history.

The trend surely has been in the other direction. In her controversial new book "The Age of American Unreason," author Susan Jacoby argues that the "scales of American history have shifted heavily against the vibrant and varied intellectual life so essential to functioning democracy. During the past four decades, America's endemic anti-intellectual tendencies have been grievously exacerbated by a new species of semiconscious anti-rationalism, feeding on and fed by an ignorant popular culture of video images and unremitting noise that leaves no room for contemplation or logic."

In other words, she argues, it's become fashionable to be stupid.

...

In his speech this morning on the economy, Senator Obama didn't mention Clinton ONCE. He spoke considerably about McCain, but nothing about the Democratic nomination "battle". A post on Huffington advised him to just move past her, like she's irrelevant already, and I think that is precisely what he needs to do, and is possibly doing already. The idea that she can still catch him in the delegate race is, to use the Clinton vernacular, a fairytale.

Honestly, it's getting kind of stupid for her to keep this going so long just to see if she can run over and put her foot on him and proclaim "victory" if, and only if, he stumbles. It's clearly ripping the heart right out of the Democratic party, and the Republicans are salivating at every turn.

Still, in his speech this morning, he laid out a comprehensive economic plan, which I thought either proved that he has a thorough understanding of economics (he does), and/or he has surrounded himself with some extremely smart people (he has).

Either way, this speech proved that he has more to offer than just pretty speeches. The substance over style battle is OVER.

Click further for his complete speech on the economy (about 33 minutes).

Today, Clinton and John McCain both took the same side and called Barack Obama "out of touch" with the working class. Clinton called Obama out of touch with the working class. Obama spent his formative years IN the working class, and then worked as a community organizer FOR the working class. Clinton, however, spent the better part of the last 35 years working for wealthy corporations and banks...not quite working-class experience if you ask me.

Yet another Republican attack being used by her campaign to try and jab at the only electable person in this presidential race.

Obama responded well, I think.

I finally watched the Democratic Debate in PA yesterday afternoon. I have to say, Obama actually seemed a little flustered by some of the really useless barbs and questions aimed at him during the first 45 minutes. This Republican-style, Rovian attack came from two fronts - [semi-surprising] ABC Moderator George Stephanopoulos (who happened to be on Bill Clinton's payroll for 8 years), and desperation candidate Hillary Clinton.

As it turns out, the grilling about the Weather Underground [the terrorists, not the website] and Bill Ayers was prompted by two prominent right-wing lunatics at least a day before the debate, Sean Hannity and Steve Malzberg.

From Newsweek:

Clinton said "people died" in 1970s bombings by a radical group of which an Obama acquaintance was a member. In fact, the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.

Well, even after the atrocity of that debate, where Clinton invoked 9/11 at least 7 times, Obama came out apparently unhindered in a lot of superdelegates' minds. Also, his campaign is spinning this like he used the debate as a run-up to the general election fight with the Repubs.

From the NYT:

Yet despite giving it her best shot in what might have been their final debate, interviews on Thursday with a cross-section of these superdelegates ... showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground.
...
Some Clinton advisers also said that the focus on Mr. Obama’s “guns or religion” comment was a way to put him on the spot with so-called values voters — in part to offset Mrs. Clinton’s baggage in this area.
...
Mr. Obama sought to allay concerns about questions of his electability on Thursday. At a campaign stop in Raleigh, N.C., a woman told Mr. Obama that he was “really pummeled during the debate.” She continued, “What is your strategy to beat the Republicans in November?”

“That was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November. It happened just a little bit early, but that is what they will do,” Mr. Obama said. “They will try to focus on all these issues that don’t have anything to do with how you are paying your bills at the end of the month. There’s no doubt that I will have to respond sharply and crisply, then pivot to talk about what exactly are we going to do for the economy and what are we going to do about the war in Iraq.”

Until the nominating fight ends, Mr. Obama said, he is “trying to show some restraint.” He added, “I won’t have as much restraint with the Republicans. [emphasis mine]"

Supporters of Mr. Obama have expressed concern about the bitter ferocity of the Democratic race, particularly with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain sounding similar themes of criticism against Mr. Obama. They used Wednesday’s debate as the latest example to superdelegates that the prolonged nominating fight could be damaging to the party.

“And I have to say Senator Clinton looked in her element,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to an audience of North Carolina voters. “She was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. You know, that’s all right. That’s her right. That’s her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit.”

Indeed, several superdelegates said they had been put off by negative moments in the debate.

“What I’m hearing from voters in this state who have been uncommitted or not solidly behind any candidate is that they are increasingly frustrated with the negativism going on, mostly on her side,” said Patricia Waak, the Colorado state party chairwoman. (Mr. Obama won the Colorado primary in a landslide.)

This is going to be an interesting general election at least.

I can't wait for him to move into Pennsylvania Ave.

The stupid flag pin question reared it's ugly head during the debate Wednesday. In spite of the fact that apparently wearing a flag pin breaks the flag rules (and no I'm not saying that that's the reason Obama didn't wear one), many seem to think that wihtout one on your lapel you're un-American. So I thought I'd pitch my two bits in on the issue.

I'm a Christian and as a general rule I wear neither a cross nor a crucifix. I have and do on occasion, sometimes as an earring, a necklace, or on a tee shirt (though more rarely as I get older), but I decided some time back that if people couldn't tell by my speech/behavior that I was Christian then wearing a cross or any other Christian symbol made little sense. If my behavior is un-Christian then being identified with Christ would bring shame to my brethren and more importantly my Lord and his name. If my behavior is Christian then the symbol would be superfluous.

I think the same goes for Obama and the flag. Anyone who knows anything about current political events knows that Obama is an American. Anyone who is running for political office in this country more than likely loves this country. We may disagree on what that looks like, but I'd like to think that it's a given. Everything I've heard the man say indicates that Obama cares about this country and the people that live in it. So why should he have to wear a pin?

So the only reason he would have to wear the pin would be to pander to those who need to wear their patriotism on their sleeve. Is that what we want, more pandering?

Incidentally, if you’re the kind of person that does fly the flag or wear a pin or a crucifix or what have you, I’m not saying that you’re somehow wrong. I’m really not. I have to ask why you do, but you have a right to express yourself and your belief. I respect that. I just don’t think you need to come down on those of us who decide not to.

is supporting Obama. He's not my favorite man in the world (far from it), but I can't help but agree with him here.

Well, that sounded good last year, but over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does -- AND the "church bulletin" once included a Los Angeles Times op-ed from some guy with Hamas! No, not the church bulletin!

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

"Color" me disappointed.

On last night’s Daily Show Jon Stewart articulated the deep-seated fears of those white racist voters, the ones who really think Reverend Wright is an issue, the flag-pin standard bearers:

JS: I’m going to cut through the spin for you, sir. This is what I’m here for. There’s a lot of insinuation amongst the pundits about these controversies. The Reverend Wright controversy, the flag pin controversy. By the way, I am wearing mine. It’s just pinned directly to my chest. I can tell you what the real concern is. You can answer this question right here, right now and put it all to bed.

BO: [laughs] Go ahead.

JS: Sir, we are concerned that ultimately at the end of the day, if you are fortunate enough to get the Democratic nomination, fortunate to become President of the United States, will you pull a bait-and-switch, sir, and enslave the white race? Is that your plan? And, if it is your plan, be honest. Tell us now.

BO: [laughs] That is not our plan Jon, but I think you’re paranoia might make you suitable as a debate moderator.

ht to Bang the Drum

I admired Obama when he did not throw Wright under the bus after the whole debacle flared up the first. But as you probably know, Wright persisted yesterday, giving speeches which, among other things, reiterated his suspicions that the US government is responsible for AIDS. He also said that Obama renounced his words merely because he had to do what a politician does. In essence, he threw Obama under the bus. Obama wasn't left with much choice but to come against Wright, rather just his words. Hindsight being 20/20, it's about damned time.

I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about.
...
I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday.
...
The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.
...
They certainly don’t portray accurately my values and beliefs.
...
If Reverend Wright thinks that’s political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn’t know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either.
...
I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that’s what I’m doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.
...
It is antithetical to my campaign. It is antithetical to what I’m about. It is not what I think America stands for.

Tom Hanks is endorsing Barack Obama.

This is full of awesome.

goats: the store : protobama

ht to Ugly Hill

But this commercial put out by the RNC is still pretty painful to watch.

ht: Marc Ambinder

Right now I got nothin' better than this, but this may be good enough.

Yeah I know, kool-aid blah blah blah, but hell the fact that he's made it this far makes me damn proud to be an American.

While we're on the topic of religion in government, the good Senator offered a more nuanced take on religion in June 2006. Compare this with McCain's take, which sparked such a lively discussion.

The whole speech is worth a read and both the devout and irreverent will take something away from it.
[Note: As you may have noticed, there are some odd transitions in the above video. Thinking someone might have been editing Obama's words, I found the speech, which reads the same, with the exception of a small segment at the end.]

Obama's first general election ad:

This might be the only time you see me quote from a Robert Novak article, but here goes...

His tenuous 13-year relationship with the Republican Party, following his retirement from the Army, has ended. The national security adviser for Ronald Reagan left the present administration bitter about being ushered out of the State Department a year earlier than he wanted. As an African American, friends say, Powell is sensitive to racial attacks on Obama and especially on Obama's wife, Michelle. While McCain strategists shrug off defections from Bruce Bartlett and Larry Hunter, they wince in anticipating headlines generated by Powell's expected endorsement of Obama.

Roger Simon at Politico weighs in on The New Yorker's recent cover:

... [T]his is what is called the Idiot’s Veto: If a single person might not get a joke, then you should not tell the joke. All humor (and everything else) should be reduced to the lowest common denominator just to make sure nobody misunderstands anything.

This would, of course, remove a lot of the humor from life. Shows like “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report,” both of which are almost pure satire, would have to go off the air. And the late-night comics would have to shut up. And many writers would have to stop writing. All in order to have an idiot-proof society.

What say you? Is the cover offensive? Good satire? Bad satire?

I just got finished watching Barack Obama's speech from Berlin. It goes without saying -- in present company, at least -- that it was an outstanding speech. Not so much a policy speech, but symbolically very powerful.

On my way into work today, I heard one commentator on POTUS 08 talking about how it might be seen as a bad thing that Obama attracted more people (approximately 100,000, based on estimates I've seen) to a foreign event than he has in any national event. I can see a couple problems with that analysis: First, he is only in the city for one day. I know people from all over Germany (and probably elsewhere in Europe) came to see him speak. If he was doing events everyday in Europe, obviously it wouldn't be so massive. Secondly, I'm not sure how a show of international support could be considered a negative. Is America really that xenophobic that foreign support would hurt Obama? (Stupid question; we tend to elect someone based on whether or not we could drink a beer with them.) Obama enjoys international support because he doesn't have a "with us or against us" mentality. He has a more nuanced and intelligent approach to foreign policy. He knows what he's talking about! Once again, it astounds me that this is a negative thing for some.

What I found striking as the camera panned over the huge crowd were the American flags some were waving. It is so refreshing to see Berliners actually willing and proud to wave our flag. That, in itself was more moving to me than the actual speech. If we want to improve the America's image for the rest of the world, we have to elect Obama.

Watch the speech after the break.

ht to roadkillrefugee