NYT: “Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech should end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright”
posted at 9:35 pm on March 18, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The most rewarding thing about a day like today, when some liberal’s in trouble and anxious to save his own ass, is watching the worst, most predictable, most embarrassing hacks on the other side go face-first into the tank, exactly as you’d expect they would. Sullivan? Check. Matthews? Check. The New York Times College of Cardinals? Checkity check check.
There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.
Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better…
There have been times when we wondered what Mr. Obama meant when he talked about rising above traditional divides. This was not such a moment.
Hey, guys? If the last 20 years count for anything, the best estimates of his “fundamental beliefs” are that the United States is a racist hegemon begging to have jets flown into office towers to teach it a thing or two about imperialism. He’s a gutless, opportunistic coward who was afraid to say an unkind word to one of the power brokers in the black community on whom he counted for votes as an Illinois politician, and now that he’s a national figure he’s throwing the same guy under the bus to preserve the illusion that he’s a “post-racial” politician. And you’re sitting there cheering him on because you don’t care what sort of idiocy or anti-American vitriol you have to swallow to put a Democrat back into the White House. Does that about sum it up? Have I missed any “nuance” in the “U.S. government created the AIDS virus” rant that Obama never, ever heard anything about and that you’re now willing to wave away?
Exit question invitation: Which parts of Wright’s sermons, precisely, does the New York Times have any great objection to? The punchline to all this nonsense is that the good reverend’s rantings really aren’t very far outside the liberal mainstream (his AIDS theory notwithstanding), which is probably why Obama thought he could bury this scandal in the first place. So let’s compromise: You make a list of everything Wright’s said that you think is beyond the pale or off the reservation and we’ll pretend that Obama’s objections to those statements are heartfelt and sincere and not something he’d ever, ever want his young daughters to hear. Deal?
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Perfect.
Jaibones on March 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Contrary to the hopes of the NYT’s, this discussion is far from over!
Pam on March 18, 2008 at 9:41 PM
And this should end the debate about whether or not The New York Times is an objective newspaper or a left wing propaganda sheet. For those in doubt, you can scratch “objective newspaper”.
rplat on March 18, 2008 at 9:41 PM
This has got to be so transparent to even the most liberal of Times readers. Forget about voting for Hillary because of electability of Obama in the general. Vote for Hillary just to stick it to the MSM. Your vote could help throw the ice down Chris Matthews’ pants.
malan89 on March 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Shall we at last get past this modern Chauncy Gardener’s style and insist on substance?
Or… shall we wait till, say, October to take a clearer look at this man behind the curtain?
Scribbler on March 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM
The only question about this NYT piece is whether it’s social engineering or mostly wishful thinking… as journalism or bona fide editorial it is not.
But then again, it’s the NYT. So what else is new.
petefrt on March 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Sadly, it has become all to predictable and boring…
dmann on March 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM
So funny to see so many “smart people” be mesmerized so easily by someone who just fed them a huge lie…
Verbal Abuse on March 18, 2008 at 9:43 PM
NYT, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Alden Pyle on March 18, 2008 at 9:44 PM
DING! DING! DING!
Weight of Glory on March 18, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I want to have this discussion every day until in the minds of a majority of the voting citizens of Illinois, Barack Obama is disqualified from sitting in the Senate, much less the Oval Office.
As Newt said, and I paraphrase, if this douchebag can’t reign in a knucklehead like Jeremiah Wright, how on earth will he grow the nuts required to reign in and persuade Amadmaninadinnerjacket, or even the liberals now running England?
They will look upon Obama as the embodiment of every negative spin they have ever heard about this country.
Jaibones on March 18, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Your nose is brown, NYT.
SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 9:46 PM
He could have gone out there and recited lyrics from NWA and NYT and Matthews would have gushed at the relevance, delivery, inflection, tone and tenor. All is forgiven, we belive, we hope we changey, change, change.
Alden Pyle on March 18, 2008 at 9:47 PM
lol, truly marvelous
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Bored…yawn….
Obama has probably lost at least 5-10% of the labor Democrats that were sitting on the fence. Doesn’t sound like much, but I think the effect could be great. It certainly has the potential to make things more difficult going into some of the traditional industrial states as this process goes forward.
moxie_neanderthal on March 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM
I’m sorry, but just how many stories on Bob Jones U did the NYT throw out there?
Amazing…
benrand on March 18, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Obama’s done. The rest of the nomination and election will be a slow-motion train wreck. I’d lay even money Barry O doesn’t even make it to the nomination. Sometime in the next couple of weeks, as it becomes increasingly clear that no one beyond the traditional hard-left interest and black groups will even think about voting for him any more, the Democrat party bigwigs will have a long, quiet conversation with him, and the next day he’ll sadly announce that he’s ending his candidacy and throwing his support to Hillary. Today was his last chance to veer away from that fate, and he blew it. I’m not surprised. I think he showed his character when he refused to wear the flag lapel pin, or salute during the Pledge of Allegiance – childishly simple things that a full-blooded American, of any color, would do without hesitation. There will be a black president in my lifetime, I’m sure, but much more important than being black, he’ll be red, white, and blue. Obama’s missing the white and blue.
Doctor Zero on March 18, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Hey NYT, by what mechanism has that “risk-abhorrent” attitude been inserted into, not just political campaigns, but society as a whole…hmmmmmm. Smug jerks!
Weight of Glory on March 18, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Bare “his fundamental beliefs”?!?! Which are???? That the NYT will vomit this diatribe in his “defense” is entirely predictable. That he has any ‘fundamental beliefs’ is laughable.
thedecider on March 18, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I bet the NYT had the fluff piece written before I woke up this morning.
blankminde on March 18, 2008 at 9:54 PM
What ever you’re drinking…don’t stop…EVAH!
SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 9:55 PM
This is not going to go away. The main stream media (at least some of it) are going to be taking a closer look at this guy. God knows what they are going to find. It would seem that the Dims have quite literally bought themselves a pig in a poke.
I have to say that, more and more, I’m looking forward to watching the Dim nominating convention.
trigon on March 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM
I imagine the only people who will buy this are also buying the NY Slimes.
And their numbers continue to dwindle.
Some people look at things they way they are and ask why, and some people look at things the way they wish they were, and print it in the Times.
drjohn on March 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Charlie Manson gave such a nice talk. Why don’t we just let him go and forget all about it?
Who are you going to believe, Obama or your own ears?
In the very first episode of Babylon 5, we are given a piece of wisdom: Forget the propaganda. Concentrate on what you see. Good advice, that.
njcommuter on March 18, 2008 at 9:56 PM
and failed .
Mojack420 on March 18, 2008 at 9:58 PM
That about covers it AP. Nice job.
TheBigOldDog on March 18, 2008 at 9:58 PM
But, but…soooooo many flags on stage behind him.
(Nevermind they were blurry, and nary a whiff of a flag on him. No need for him to feel dirty inside or anything from wearing that god damned American flag.)
SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Didn’t the NYT jump the shark a while ago?
cannonball on March 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Nice picture too…its like Barry O visiting the dentist or something.
blankminde on March 18, 2008 at 9:59 PM
yep
Kudos to Scribbler
I like to watch
windansea on March 18, 2008 at 10:00 PM
The NY Slimes.
j0 on March 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Barfity, Barf, BARF!!!!
seanrobins on March 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Good idea, NYT. Let’s just put this all behind us, forget that Obama’s moral guidance counselor is Rev. Blame Whitey, and ignore the fact Obama didn’t even condemn the controversial statements until ABC News brought them up.
OR, and this is just a suggestion, the Lib apologists at the NYT can kiss our collective asses.
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Nice post AP. What exactly does the left leaning media types think went to far? How much America hating is allowed? That is what gets me about libs, just be who you are. If your cause is so noble, do not run from your beliefs when challegned.
chief on March 18, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Time to re-run that McCain scandalous affair story.
awake on March 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I’m afraid that the New York Times has never been behind the shark to begin with.
seanrobins on March 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM
When did the NY Times become so badly managed and run? It used to be a pretty good paper. Now it’s a one sided, predictable, manipulative rag(or fish wrap as Michelle calls it). Sadly, it doesn’t even seem to know or care how much it’s slipped.
jeanie on March 18, 2008 at 10:04 PM
The hustle is on!!!
tarpon on March 18, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Does the NYT really believe that this America-hating, terrorist appeasing, black supremacist pulled it off today? They can’t be serious. Not even they can believe their spin, right?
Greenhorn on March 18, 2008 at 10:06 PM
abc has some new Wright videos…talking about Condi Rice…Tiger woods…more goodies for us.
jp on March 18, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Shameful — the NYT is a mouthpiece for the worst of leftist electioneering…what a sham.
Richard Romano on March 18, 2008 at 10:08 PM
He did put a nice shiny coat of new paint on the house, but it’s still the same siding underneath.
MB4 on March 18, 2008 at 10:08 PM
A great article in the commentary section today of the Washington Times, by Frank Gaffney, titled “The New Dhimmi Times” , summed up the awesomely traitorous work of the NYTimes . I’ll try to link it and post it, if possible.
4shoes on March 18, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Well, there’s the mission statement of his own church…
Or maybe faith-based socialism sits okay with the Times.
Typhoon on March 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
AP,
One of the sweetest and most righteous rants I’ve heard in many a moon. Nobody here will take you up on your ‘invatation’ because to do so will expose them a an abject intellectual and moral hypocrite instantly. Nicely done. Now, if only some tool at dKos would link this, the comment comedy would be worth it’s weight in gold.
AUINSC on March 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Here it is… http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080318/COMMENTARY03/160500490/1012/COMMENTARY
4shoes on March 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Well put, Doctor Zero! Cool of you to catch ‘the red’; these ‘Black Liberation’ folks are right out of the old Trotskyite playbook: just as Communist, just as anti-American, and just as dangerous. Obambi is clever, but not clever enough to hide those tell-tale signs of disaffection from the country he wants to take over.
MrLynn on March 18, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Excerpt from the Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story?page=1
Obama knows his way around a ballot
Some say his ability to play political hardball goes back to his first campaign
By David Jackson and Ray Long | Tribune staff reporters
6:48 PM CDT, April 3, 2007
The day after New Year’s 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.
There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city’s South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama’s four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.
Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.
But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.
A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.
One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.
“Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”
In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”
But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled.
“I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn’t meet the requirements,” he said. “My conclusion was that if you couldn’t run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be.”
Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: “I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”
America has been defined in part by civil rights and good government battles fought out in Chicago’s 13th District, which in 1996 spanned Hyde Park mansions, South Shore bungalows and poverty-bitten precincts of Englewood.
It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.
Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.
But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.
Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer’s hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.
“I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant,” Obama said. “It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently.”
His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists.
“There was friction about the decision he made,” said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer’s behalf. “There were deep disagreements.”
Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer’s elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama’s electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.
Obama contended that in the case of the 1996 race, in which he routed token opposition in the general election, he was ready to compete in the primary if necessary.
“We actually ran a terrific campaign up until the point we knew that we weren’t going to have to appear on the ballot with anybody,” Obama said. “I mean, we had prepared for it. We had raised money. We had tons of volunteers. There was enormous enthusiasm.”
And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: “If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people’s business.”
At the time, though, Obama seemed less at ease with the decision, according to aides. They said the first-time candidate initially expressed reservations about using challenges to eliminate all his fellow Democrats.
“He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.”
In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.
While Obama didn’t attend the hearings, “he wanted us to call him every night and let him know what we were doing,” Davis said, noting that Palmer and the others seemed unprepared for the challenges.
But Obama didn’t gloat over the victories. “I don’t think he thought it was, you know, sporting,” said Will Burns, a 1996 Obama campaign volunteer who assisted with the petition challenges. “He wasn’t very proud of it.”
NNtrancer on March 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Couple his racist pastor/personal friend/mentor with his rage filled wife and we begin to see the man behind the purty Sugar Ray Leonard mask.
Then look to his policy to see what he has in store for us with criminals…it’ll look like Gotham:
Alden Pyle on March 18, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I believe it started back in the 20’s and 30’s when they were willing to give the Soviets a pass on deliberately starving millions of their own citizens in pursuit of a glorious socialist future.
Or, it could have been their tolerance and even admiration for those rascally but likeable Nazi fellows. Who would have ever thought that they’d turn out to be such murderer’s?
The Times has been a commie loving, dictator worshipping, leftist rag for decades.
trigon on March 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM
I made a comment to a friend of mine this last weekend that racism is alive and well in this country. He replied that it is even stronger than what it used to be. I agreed with him, its going to get nastier before it gets better.
cjs1943 on March 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM
MB4 on March 18, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Flat black to my eyes!
dmann on March 18, 2008 at 10:15 PM
“It’s hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.”
Yeah, since he ended up being forced into having to handle it at all.
surrounded on March 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Hey, AP and y’alls, have you see the Obama toast being auctioned at eBay?
Make sure to check out the customer Q&A at the bottom of the listing.
Terrie on March 18, 2008 at 10:18 PM
fogedaboudit
why get enraged at the inevitable swoon by media and pundits over this speech, all of Obama’s backers knew that Wright’s oratory was pure poison, of course they are going to gush and say it’s all over
cue 527 video montages in the general
bring it on Bambi
windansea on March 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM
I still can’t believe he tossed Granny overboard like he did. His words about Wright were more glowing than about her!
And Sean and Dick Morris made an interesting point on H&C. He can indict Granny for saying things that made him “cringe.” But in 20 yrs, he feigns ignorance.
Dubn8tr on March 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Was it an accident that white people were able to get AIDS too? Or was that just an acceptable side effect to reach the true goal — killing black people?
Just curious how it all went down, since nobody seems to care.
Riposte on March 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Allahpundit’s got a feva and the only prescription is more Rev. Racist! >:D
Chickens coming home to Roost!!!!
America Created the AIDS virus!
GD AMERIKA KKK-A!!!!! WHooo woooo!!!!!
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 10:24 PM
e new video where Wright blames racist America for Katrina, calls Condi a skeaze, and spanks Tiger Woods.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4469041
Keep ‘em coming, one a day from now till November.
Alden Pyle on March 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Obama is done!
This stuff even makes democrats stomachs turn(especially elderly ones)
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Rev. Racist’s Greatest hits.. LOL
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 10:28 PM
“It’s hard to imagine how he could have handled it better.”
Well, he could have told the truth. That would have been an marked improvement over his usual lying obfuscating crap.
Hey, and how about his attacking his dead grandmother? You know, the one who raised and fed him.
Now THAT was a classy exhibition of Presidential character!
TexasJew on March 18, 2008 at 10:28 PM
And you would reward him for this improvement how?
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Where do you live? Note to self: don’t go there
Alden Pyle on March 18, 2008 at 10:31 PM
checkity check check….
U R killing me.
d1carter on March 18, 2008 at 10:33 PM
I have to say, Allah, this has been one of your best days, evah.
Keep up the good work.
d1carter on March 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM
condasqueza rice??? is that urban speak for sleaza?
ps Tiger just bought a $65 million Hampton estate
please explain
windansea on March 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Could’ve taken a bit more pressure off. But that’s besides the point. Why would we need to reward a presidential candidate for, uh, telling the truth instead of lying.
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM
He calls Condi a skeazer right in Church, right from the pulpit! WTH!
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM
What a surprise,its Race Relations and not Irag!
So the left are going to stick handle this for Obama
and Mr.Wright,how nice and at the rate the media keeps
going,hopefully everything will stay calm,unless the media
keeps going.
I must be crazy,this is a Liberal nominee’s mess,and all
of a sudden it becomes America’s fault,besides the media,
where will this end!
canopfor on March 18, 2008 at 10:36 PM
CAN I GET AN AAAAAAAAMEN!!!!!
WisCon on March 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Ah yes, the Allahpundit we all know and love. I think you covered it all.
Vigilante on March 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Agreed. We are now just talking about Wright..as soon as we catch our breath from today’s speech, we will realize that within the past week, Obama admitted that Rezko gave more than we were told and Obama did in fact sit through some of those speeches that just last week he said he didn’t. Add to that this NNtrancer on March 18, 2008 at 10:13 PM, in combination with the article written by Todd Spivak Barack Obama and Me
It isn’t over by a long shot…
Pam on March 18, 2008 at 10:38 PM
SEZ WHO?
sharinlite on March 18, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Because that would provide some substance to attempts to disprove the main thesis of the NYT, which so far seems to be 100% correct.
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I almost think this is a plan of dividing,and at election
time,wouldn’t be the first time Liberals are playing games.
And remember the Liberal Democrats want the White
House,but really,at what cost!
canopfor on March 18, 2008 at 10:39 PM
That’s what I wanted to hear long time ago from many people on the Right, not when Hussein is in trouble.
Gingrich, O’Reilly, Hume, etc., the clowns of Fox News are painting that boy as a heavenly being, how formidable, excellent candidate he is, how his speeches are super, etc., etc., and none of these cowards on the Right dare say anything negative about Hussein until these last days, even then they keep on praising him.
For what? What did he accomplished?
Ah, those cowards are afraid of him because he’s Black.
That’s how he’s going to win the presidency, idiots.
Maybe the cheerleaders on the Right can let us know why they didn’t dare attacking Hussein until now, maybe I’m wrong in my assessment.
And why in the goddamn world McCain is silent?
Whose election is this, Mr. Veteran?
Indy Conservative on March 18, 2008 at 10:41 PM
HotAir needs to start a clock to see how long it takes Obama to storm off a set, or at least get pointy-fingered during an interview.
SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 10:41 PM
(GD AMerika)
Umm.. nobody should praise that! :{
Amen denied. ;)
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 10:41 PM
How could he have handed it better? He could’ve significantly addressed the issue days ago. He could’ve disowned the pastor, not alluded that the views are mainstream in black America, and not have said that simply condemning Wright’s remarks without “understanding” them are essentially more racism.
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 10:43 PM
You need to settle down.
And wise up.
Chakra Hammer on March 18, 2008 at 10:44 PM
The NYT having declared the matter resolved, by tomorrow the Obama people and Dems and the MSM and HuffPo types will be ritually chanting “swiftboating” in response to questions about the Chosen 1 on the Rev. Wright debacle.
Leftwing A-listers Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan went off today, praising Obama’s speech through the roof with schoolgirl-crush adulation.
“worthy of Lincoln”???
Uh, not. so. much.
Oh well. Get used to it: Obama-Rama in the media from
now until November, 24/7/287. The Hillary factor is still out there, but…
Within days, the Damus foresees that any further discussion or criticism of the Wright issue will send mobs of teenagers in kaffiyehs and NOFX concert tee’s into the streets shouting “Racist Swiftboater” at random people walking by on the sidewalk.
Mike D. on March 18, 2008 at 10:47 PM
NYT Headlines of the future:
McCain’s Great-Great Cousin Twice Removed Owned Slaves!
Is McCain Too Old?
Harvard Poll: American’s More Racist Than Thought!
SouthernGent on March 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM
I’ve listened to this speech several times today.. to sort through it, to hasten the processing and internalization of it.
The more I hear it, the more I’m clear that Mr. Obama’s eloquent speech
should endwill not end the debate over his ties to Mr. Wright. It was at its core a race-based appeal that avoided questions at issue by an appeal to white guilt. Instead of ending the debate on Mr. Obama’s mentorship with Wright, this statement will extend and amplify it. The speech this morning raised more questions than it answered.petefrt on March 18, 2008 at 10:49 PM
29% of blacks think better of Obama now. More than 50% have the same opinion. Of course, they are mainstream. What you think about it is a different issue.
And let me reiterate the point you pretend to have not noticed. Nothing Obama could have done would have changed your opinion about him. I’m not saying it makes you bad. I didn’t support him, I still don’t. But I love playing Devil’s advocateI also genuinely believe that in a situation he was in, the speech was a good way to deal with the problem.
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 10:49 PM
I’m not saying the speech wasn’t a good way to deal with it. I don’t think it puts everything to rest, and think he could’ve done better in the speech.
And don’t assume my opinion of him wouldn’t have even slightly altered. If this came out, disowned the pastor, and didn’t try to portray it the way he did today, I actually would’ve considered him a more honorable man.
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 10:52 PM
this=he
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 10:53 PM
And Ferraro is the racist?
dmann on March 18, 2008 at 10:54 PM
What poll are you talking about with the opinion of the African American community, by the way?
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Pisssst! Sullivan is a Conservative.
Gay as four dollar bill. But just the same, Conservative.
At least he says he is…. *snort*
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 18, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Yeap………..
Just one more thing……..
NYT=Toilet Paper, (trying to think of linking the NYT to the grossest image in my sick and twisted mind………. OK, I will keep it PG (in a Tijuana resturant, that perpously under cooks the pork for their Carnitas for American tourists, pisses in the beer, and spits in the salsa, and it is the only thing you have for the two hour wait in line to get back to the US at the San Ysidro crossing…… yeah, that New York Times, it’s worth ever word printed!) …. or, you could of had a fish taco and not buy the paper.
Just my $0.02…..
Seven Percent Solution on March 18, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Yeah, “claims”. He says Iraq is a mistake, opposes continued presence there, believes Republicans believe in larger government than Dems, and loves the most Liberal U.S. Senator.
amerpundit on March 18, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Really? And you would not have said that there was no way he was sincere seeing as how he’d spent 20 years in that church doing nothing about it?
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Very conservative. Not very Republican.
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 11:08 PM
which 50% would that be? show us a link to your poll :)
windansea on March 18, 2008 at 11:12 PM
:\
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 11:17 PM
Seems the NYT is ridin’ dirty…
eanax on March 18, 2008 at 11:18 PM
This is SO TRUE. Wright’s ranting is not that far off from typical leftist anti-American garbage you see around on the web or in protests that guys like Zombie document. So those Wright videos aren’t really that shocking when you look at it from that perspective. It’s kind of funny and weird seeing lefty posters on the web worrying over this. I guess they are not really offended by the America bashing but rather how it would hurt Obama in the election.
gumble on March 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM
freevillage on March 18, 2008 at 11:17 PM
huh? do you understand english?
You said:
here’s what the poll you linked to sez
windansea on March 18, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »