Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


ABC: Obama contradicts a year of denial

posted at 2:03 pm on March 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view

ABC News took a closer look at the Barack Obama speech on race yesterday and found curious discrepancies from past positions. Brian Ross and Avni Patel also note similar contradictions in Obama’s positions on Tony Rezko. It looks like some of the media has finally begun vetting the Democratic front-runner for the nomination:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of “thousands of donors.”

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage. …

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright’s sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

The ABC interview prior to the speech gives another datapoint on the claims of New Politics on behalf of Obama. Just as with Rezko, Obama tried minimizing his exposure to Wright’s sermons. Only after finding that a losing proposition did he acknowledge that he had listened to Wright’s incendiary speeches against America, but somehow failed to challenge him until other people began hearing the rhetoric for themselves. That followed within days of Obama’s acknowledgment that he had underreported Rezko’s financial contribution to Obama’s campaigns by a factor of five.

That initial reaction hardly commends Obama as a courageous statesman. It shows him as a politician of the usual stripe — one who attempts to spin out of a jam with half-truths and at best a graduated honesty dependent on how much evidence gets made public. Obama’s claim to conduct himself to a higher standard; indeed, because of his singular lack of experience and accomplishment, it’s the only claim he has for election to the nation’s highest office. If he doesn’t have that, then he has no basis for election at all.

Even the contradictory attempt to distance himself from Wright’s statements failed to make the case. He argued in the rest of speech that we need to put an end to divisiveness, and that Wright’s rhetoric belongs to the past, not the present or the future. Having said that, what did Obama ever do to make that case at his own church? Wright expounds these incendiary and unacceptable themes, as Obama himself admits, to the present and future generations at Trinity. Obama’s own children sit in those pews, as well as a large number of children from other families. Did Obama ever speak out even once to challenge Wright’s views?

If Obama can’t bring change he says is necessary to his own church, why should we trust him to bring change to the nation?


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

HA – first post!!

bizznatch14 on March 19, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Obama’s done. If the MSM are noting the contradictions, his status as a new kind of candidate is lost. He has little else to offer except identity politics, and can’t win that battle with Hillary.

cs89 on March 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM

The only thing surprising about this article is that it was from ABC. Hopefully the media will keep shining the light on Obama and his history of only saying what the public wants to hear, rather than the truth.

raiderdav on March 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Does this mean the MSM will actually continue to discuss this? I thought all further inquiry was limited to the racist, evil, rightist conspiracy now that Barry has spoken.

phronesis on March 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM

“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

How Clintonesque.. I guess it depends on what you mean by the word, ‘controversial’.

The two faces of Obama, Bill Clinton and Rev. Wright morph into a candidate likely not ready for prime time ever.

normsrevenge on March 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Obama did change. He changed his speech against Wright when it was expedient to do so and now has changed back to being for Wright when it is expedient to do so.

So I finally figured out what Obama’s change is. Its taking multiple political stances to whatever way the wind is blowing

William Amos on March 19, 2008 at 2:12 PM

Why has Hussein Obama not dropped out of the race and resigned from the senate yet?

Let’s keep it up until that happens.

Don’t worry, we’ll take down the Hildebeast next.

SaintOlaf on March 19, 2008 at 2:13 PM

ABC is clearly racist.

lorien1973 on March 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM

I thought bc was a good liar and did it with a straight face, but this guy outdoes him 1000%. He does not need or deserve to be president.
L

letget on March 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM

cs89 on March 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM

How we wish he were done. The liberals will see this as nothing but neocon racist drivel and I will bet he loses none of his support.

mimi1220 on March 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM

OBAMA- HOPE & CHANGE, for 8 PERCENT ( thats 8% , leaving 92% out of hope)
.
the 8% man!

shooter on March 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM

“Grandma got run over by a reindeer racist…”

Brat on March 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM

looks like ABC is trying to throw cold water on Mathews leg

Mojack420 on March 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM

Why has Hussein Obama not dropped out of the race and resigned from the senate yet?

Two words…Ted Kennedy.
Four more…Woman left for dead.
The Dems don’t care what you’ve done.

shooter on March 19, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Good for ABC, finally a major news outlet other than Fox stepping up to the plate.

WisCon on March 19, 2008 at 2:20 PM

This just smells of Clinton, Inc………

Seven Percent Solution on March 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM

I’ve figured it out: ABC employs Jon Stossel. Jon Stossel is Jewish. And a right winger. Therefore ABC must be an evil neocon zionist conspiracy designed to further the destruction of the poor and slightly brown Palestinian people. QED.

phronesis on March 19, 2008 at 2:27 PM

Obama will get through this for two reasons.

1. The media wants to change the subject because they a) Like Obama. b) Don’t want to talk about religion c) Are bored with the story.

2. Team McCain and Team Clinton suck at media whoring so they haven’t really taken the opportunity to appeal towards those leaning towards Obama but put off by uncle Jeremiah. Obama will win them back.

It will hurt him a little but it’s not going to kill him.

Team McCain needs to a) hijack Obama’s unity narrative b) compete with innovative, small government, participatory policy that can be chewed up by the masses.

ninjapirate on March 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM

I’d love to see how Obama spins his way out choosing a church and pastor that spouts “Black Liberation Theology”. Link

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Queasy on March 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM

How we wish he were done. The liberals will see this as nothing but neocon racist drivel and I will bet he loses none of his support.

mimi1220 on March 19, 2008 at 2:15 PM

He might not lose it among black people who feel like Wright does, but independents(black and white) and blue dog Democrats will be affected. Watch those PA poll figures, and even NC might be in play. State racial demographics are going to be even more important, because his speech yesterday turned this into a much more racial contest. The black vote all depends on how many buy into Wright’s philosophy.

a capella on March 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM

curious discrepancies from past positions

no….freakin’….way….

Maybe he wasn’t speaking ex cathedra, so it doesn’t count.

29Victor on March 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM

For those surprised about ABC, ABC has always been the most “Fair and Balanced” of any of the networks IMO. They’re the only network news I can stand.

ninjapirate on March 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM

ABC is clearly racist.

lorien1973 on March 19, 2008 at 2:14 PM

All part of the vast right wing zionist conspiracy, my friend.

amerpundit on March 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM

I’m still more afraid of Hillary that I am of Obama. He can easily be taken down, but look at Hillary, still there.

cjs1943 on March 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Hope and Change…his last name is really Clinton!

dmann on March 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM

He can easily be taken down, but look at Hillary, still there.

cjs1943 on March 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM

BO’s in a bit of a quagmire on that, though. He probably could’ve taken her down already, but any blatant negative campaigning would threaten to wipe away what he’s built his campaign on. Clinton, on the other hand, goes negative and built her campaign on “experience”.

amerpundit on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM

cjs1943 on March 19, 2008 at 2:31 PM

Yes, but after these primaries she won’t get the black vote. She won’t get obama supporters either. So she doesn’t really matter. The obama experience is over and she’s done with it.

lorien1973 on March 19, 2008 at 2:34 PM

What are Pastor Wright’s views on abortion and teh gheys? I thought black Christians were (commendably) unwilling to put up with that rubbish, unlike their squishy white counterparts.

Another fault line?

boko fittleworth on March 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM

It looks like ABC didn’t get the memo or they didn’t get their check. I’m not sure which.

meci on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM

I never understood why anybody thought this guy was a “new” kind of politician. He’s been consistently old-school (lying, parsing words, breaking promises, etc.) from the start. This is the same guy who, when running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, repeatedly promised voters there that he would definitely serve out his full first term, and would absolutely not be running for President or Vice President in 2008.

AZCoyote on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM

looks like ABC is trying to throw cold water on Mathews leg

Mojack420 on March 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM

HAHA!

p40tiger on March 19, 2008 at 2:37 PM

Obama is no Navin Johnson. Navin Johnson, you may remember, was the Steve Martin character from the classic 1980s comedy The Jerk. Raised by poor blacks in rural Mississippi, Navin went on to fame and fortune as the inventor of the OptiGrab. Later in the film, Navin, dressed in a robe, is discussing real estate investment with a group of shifting developers.

Con Man 2: By keeping the rents high, we’re going to appeal to a select class of people.
Navin: Select class. Very, very good.
Boss: We’ll keep the eggplants out!
Navin: Ah good! We don’t want any vegetables.
Con Man: Na, na. The jungle bunnies!
Navin: Oh of course! They’ll eat the vegetables!
Con Man: Boss, could I talk to him? We’re going to keep out the n*@@*rs!
Navin: The what?
Boss: The n*@@*rs! We’ll keep ‘em out.
Navin: Sir, you are talking to a n*@@*r!

Navin throws off his robe and, in a fit of righteous anger, proceeds to beat the men senseless. Sure, Navin was uneducated and naive but when it came to race, Navin showed uncommon judgment and a visceral sense of justice.

Barack Obama was raised in Kansas and Hawaii by white people, who also happened to be his blood relatives. Unlike Navin, he attended some of the best schools in the country. But apparently sitting in the pews of Trinity Church, listening to diatribes about the greed and arrogance, about the nefarious plotting and elaborate malevolence of white people, Mr. Obama never thought to stand up, throw off his expensive jacket and say the Rev. Wright, “Sir, you are talking to a white person!”

Now tell me, who is the jerk?

Vote Sauron 08 on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

But, but, but the KosKooks are saying Obama is the Abe Lincoln of our time….

ihasurnominashun on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Brian Ross always seems to be pretty even-handed. This seems like his kind of story.

D2Boston on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I noticed yesterday that ABC is rockin’ the Love Boat, BIG time.

tree hugging sister on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

WLS in Chicago was talking about this (of course) this morning, and a caller from Trinity wanted to explain to the host why he is wrong, and probably a racist. She went with the “cherry picking” defense, coupled with the cultural phenomenon of black ministers screaming, although she, personally does not subscribe to a single one of the points max by the host from Wright’s tirades.

Yawn…

Jaibones on March 19, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Vote Sauron 08 on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Die gas pumper!!

Brat on March 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Now tell me, who is the jerk?

Vote Sauron 08 on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Wish that could be published in the NYSlimes.

JiangxiDad on March 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Operation Chaos phase two is a success.

Iblis on March 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM

Another lying, flip-flopping liberal.

Virus-X on March 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM

OT: Allah, can we ban users that post “first post!!!!1 lol!” bullshinola?

Maybe a HotAir poll. I’d put the over/under on “yes” at 85%.

Hoodlumman on March 19, 2008 at 2:57 PM

Die gas pumper!!

Brat on March 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM

“He hates these flag pins! Stay away from the flag pins!”

James on March 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM

BO would schedule a presser, but he can’t figure out how to use his teleprompter with unrehearsed questions.

d1carter on March 19, 2008 at 3:02 PM

Maybe they should also checkout his ability to speak extemporaneously.

He’s worse than Bush…

benrand on March 19, 2008 at 3:07 PM

THE NEW PHONE BOOKS HERE

THE NEW PHONE BOOKS HERE

benrand on March 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM

CNN, as could be predicted, was rhapsodic in its praise for the Obama speech. CNN trotted out old faithful Rowland Martin, who views any criticism of Obama as racism. Then there was Donna Brazille, who rejects any critcism of any Democrat, particularly Obama. Then there was Fay Whittleston, who CNN did not identify adequately. CNN treated her as an objective political analyst, when in actuality she is a fanatical abortion rights advocate who supports even partial birth abortion. All agreed that Obama’s speech was even better than the Gettysburg Address.
Wolf Blitzer was host and Wolf Blitzer he is such a Washington eestablishment figure that he just takes his marching orders from the Washington Post.

Larraby on March 19, 2008 at 3:10 PM

I don’t see a contradiction between Obama saying earlier that he didn’t hear anti-American rhetoric but stating in his speech that he did hear controversial remarks. Many of Rev. Wrights more controversial statements were not anti-American. Unless we can tie him directly to attendance at a sermon that included anti-American remarks, there is no basis for saying that a contradiction between the two statements exists. This story only provides a basis for saying that ABC News is a Clinton supporter.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM

Brian Ross always seems to be pretty even-handed. This seems like his kind of story.

+1

pseudonominus on March 19, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Rush made a great point on his show today.

He reminded us of Obama’s reaction to Imus’s trashing of the Rutgers womens basketball team. Back then Obama said there was no room in this country for that kind of racist talk and called for the immediate firing of Imus.

Imus, crude man that he is, used the words nappy and ho. This hardly compares to the language used by Reverend White to stir up hatred against whitey based on false accusations. And Obama, to this day, still defends the man on way too many levels.

Double standard personified. Good one Rush.

fogw on March 19, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Obama is no Navin Johnson. Navin Johnson, you may remember, was the Steve Martin character from the classic 1980s comedy The Jerk. Raised by poor blacks in rural Mississippi, Navin went on to fame and fortune as the inventor of the OptiGrab. Later in the film, Navin, dressed in a robe, is discussing real estate investment with a group of shifting developers.

Con Man 2: By keeping the rents high, we’re going to appeal to a select class of people.
Navin: Select class. Very, very good.
Boss: We’ll keep the eggplants out!
Navin: Ah good! We don’t want any vegetables.
Con Man: Na, na. The jungle bunnies!
Navin: Oh of course! They’ll eat the vegetables!
Con Man: Boss, could I talk to him? We’re going to keep out the n*@@*rs!
Navin: The what?
Boss: The n*@@*rs! We’ll keep ‘em out.
Navin: Sir, you are talking to a n*@@*r!

Navin throws off his robe and, in a fit of righteous anger, proceeds to beat the men senseless. Sure, Navin was uneducated and naive but when it came to race, Navin showed uncommon judgment and a visceral sense of justice.

Barack Obama was raised in Kansas and Hawaii by white people, who also happened to be his blood relatives. Unlike Navin, he attended some of the best schools in the country. But apparently sitting in the pews of Trinity Church, listening to diatribes about the greed and arrogance, about the nefarious plotting and elaborate malevolence of white people, Mr. Obama never thought to stand up, throw off his expensive jacket and say the Rev. Wright, “Sir, you are talking to a white person!”

Now tell me, who is the jerk?

Vote Sauron 08 on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I haven’t watched The Jerk since I was a kid, but your post makes me want to. Obama: Weaker than a fictional character.

Dubn8tr on March 19, 2008 at 3:13 PM

fogw on March 19, 2008 at 3:12 PM

In his condemnation of Imus’ remarks, Obama also said that we have to be careful about the kind of “toxic information” we’re exposing our children to.

This is from the guy who has been taking his young daughters to hear “Reverend” Wright’s toxic anti-American, anti-white hate speech.

AZCoyote on March 19, 2008 at 3:18 PM

Imus, crude man that he is, used the words nappy and ho. This hardly compares to the language used by Reverend White to stir up hatred against whitey based on false accusations. And Obama, to this day, still defends the man on way too many levels.

Double standard personified. Good one Rush.

fogw on March 19, 2008 at 3:12 PM

Not to mention that Rush himself was drummed out of ESPN. He criticized the media’s treatment of a black quarterback, and to this day it is portrayed as a racist comment.

RushBaby on March 19, 2008 at 3:19 PM

He looks like he’s fallen hard off of the nicotine wagon.

baldilocks on March 19, 2008 at 3:22 PM

I don’t see a contradiction between Obama saying earlier that he didn’t hear anti-American rhetoric but stating in his speech that he did hear controversial remarks. Many of Rev. Wrights more controversial statements were not anti-American. Unless we can tie him directly to attendance at a sermon that included anti-American remarks, there is no basis for saying that a contradiction between the two statements exists. This story only provides a basis for saying that ABC News is a Clinton supporter.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM

don’t quit your day job

windansea on March 19, 2008 at 3:23 PM

I think Obama may be the real deal. He was raised white, and lives black. Maybe, at long last, a politician will have the stones to trawl out all the dirty laundry on why whites prefer to avoid dealing with blacks, and why blacks distrust whites.

It could get interesting. If Obama does not do this, he is toast. If he does, he’s the man.

saiga on March 19, 2008 at 3:29 PM

baldilocks on March 19, 2008 at 3:22 PM

But I think some are still smoking something else. heh

d1carter on March 19, 2008 at 3:31 PM

windansea on March 19, 2008 at 3:23 PM

I am not an Obama supporter, so I have no reason to defend him. I am only making an obvious conclusion based on what was quoted in the above story. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just pointing out the flaw in the logic here. If we could clearly show that Obama contradicted himself with respect to Rev. Wright’s remarks, that would be great, but the above excerpt simply doesn’t show it.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 3:33 PM

He can’t Ed. Obama will not be able to have his cake. and eat it too. Either, Obama believes this garbage, or he did not have the courage to stand up to it. Both cases leave him unfit to lead this great Country. I retract my earlier comments encouraging others to not focus so much on the racial aspect of this controversy. After reading a comment on MM, I followed a link to the Black Liberation Theology. Scary stuff. I would like to know how many black Churches have adopted this type of teaching. If the numbers are high, it will help explain some of the problems that still exist within the black community. By the way, TUCC adopted the BLT in 1981. I am not sure if they still practice this today. I would like to know. My God teaches forgiveness, and redemption, not hate, and revenge.

chief on March 19, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I was sitting here wondering what hillary could do right now to finish off barry (if she even needs to help the process at this point). I thought maybe she could give a speech about how honorable barry’s attempt was and what was accomplished but it was time for him to step away and she could announce a black running mate. I thought the dims would go for that big time and she might be able to sway the superdelegates who are probably getting more frantic by the day. But then I tried to think of who she might pick and I can’t come up with one nationally known democratic official who isn’t an idiot, a nutjob or mired in corruption. I can’t think of one that wouldn’t hurt her in the general election. Then I sat here and quickly thought of probably 15 black conservatives that not only would I consider for vp but most I would consider for president.

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Hillary will have to come up with something much more damning than the Rev. Wright story to convince the super delegates to override the current delegate count. Obama will be the Democrat nominee barring an Obama political disaster of monumental proportions.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Well Shazaam, err Shabbazz

the blogosphere was buzzing Wednesday about whether his campaign planned to remove an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party from his Web site.

Shabbazz sounds ALOT like Wright (I know nothing knew) ..Cannot get any clearer about being a Racist!

SouthTexasLady on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Thank God Thank God someone finally asked the OBVIOUS question that even the good folks at FOX failed to point out.

If Bambi is such a CHANGE AGENT then why the heck has he failed to make any changes in his own dang church??? If we’re supposed to trust him to confront bigotry, evil, and “Old School Politicians” then why hasn’t he tried to confront those very issues in his own pastor and why does he let his little girls listen to such nastiness.

Mindbogglingly obvious… one would think, no?

Gartrip on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM

Obama will be the Democrat nominee barring an Obama political disaster of monumental proportions.

I wouldn’t be so sure. This situation is exactly why the superdelegates were created and the majority of the superdelegates are elected officials. The last thing they want is to help nominate someone who becomes a liability to their own reelection and barry looks like he is getting deeper and deeper into it. But hey, if they want to nominate a racist, corrupt Chicago politican as their candidate for president, bring it on.

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Sorry, I forgot to add the url… for the story

BlackPanther Endorsemet

Well Shazaam, err Shabbazz

the blogosphere was buzzing Wednesday about whether his campaign planned to remove an endorsement by the New Black Panther Party from his Web site.
Shabbazz sounds ALOT like Wright (I know nothing knew) ..Cannot get any clearer about being a Racist!

SouthTexasLady on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM

SouthTexasLady on March 19, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Gartrip on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM

On Sunday, most of the congregation is probably half asleep when the sermon is given and the children are drawing pictures, listening to music, or reading books. I think that you are overestimating the level of attention that is given to such sermons. Besides, we all know that Obama was there to bolster his political position among blacks in order to get elected. Making waves would not have suited his main purpose for being there. It would only have denied him the opportunity to be a US Senator and a Presidential candidate. He can’t openly voice this fact, but it is what it is.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Besides, we all know that Obama was there to bolster his political position among blacks in order to get elected.

So you are positive that’s the reason why he was there and not because he believed in the message? There are more large black congregations in Chicago. This is the preacher whose tapes he listened to in law scholl and when he went to Chicago he sought out the support and guidance of this guy. More and more is coming out every day.

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM

Barack Obama was raised in Kansas and Hawaii by white people, who also happened to be his blood relatives.
Vote Sauron 08 on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Actually, Barack’s mother, (Stanley) Ann Dunham, spent her formative years in Mercer Island, Washington, attending high school there, before ending up in Hawaii.

But consistent with the 1950s, there were undercurrents of turmoil. In 1955, the chairman of the Mercer Island school board, John Stenhouse, testified before the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party.

That’s just one little nugget about the education of Ann Dunham. Read the Trib story for more…

Buy Danish on March 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Gartrip on March 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM

It doesn’t matter why the Democrats originally created the super delegate system. In the current political environment, with a black man being a viable candidate who is popular with blacks and young people, they simply don’t have the guts to overrule the elected delegate count unless a really big scandal is forthcoming. The Rev. Wright affair simply doesn’t rise to this level and will be largely forgotten within the next two weeks.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 4:23 PM

Methinks the good Senator is STILL in deep doo-doo.

awake on March 19, 2008 at 4:33 PM

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 4:19 PM

Obama is a politician first and a member of his church second. I don’t claim to know much about the inner workings of Chicago politics, but I have seen great consistency the the choices of successful politicians. All their moves, including the choice of the local church that they attend, carefully consider the impact on their political success. When it comes to such matters, Obama is no different than the rest of his peers.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Obama is a politician first and a member of his church second.

So he is another cynical, no concience politician. Either way he should be no where near the presidency.

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 4:37 PM

awake on March 19, 2008 at 4:33 PM

I agree with you. It will probably cost him the general election. But, the egos of most politicians simply don’t allow them to see such things. He thinks that he can win and that is all that matters to him.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 4:38 PM

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Yes and yes again. But reality doesn’t always dictate who wins nominations and elections. So, we can either hope for an Obama political disaster (unlikely) or pray that McCain is able to use such things as the Rev. Wright controversy to defeat him in the general election.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 4:44 PM

ihasurnominashun on March 19, 2008 at 2:40 PM

For God’s sake don’t let them find out that Lincoln was a Republican!

Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 4:46 PM

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Something tells me that you’ve never attended that sort of church service, of whatever color.

Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM

we can either hope for an Obama political disaster (unlikely)

I think you are greatly underestimating the damage that is being done now. There is another racist minister in Chicago that barry is associated with and he has the new black panther party endorsement on his website. This guy is toast.

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 4:55 PM

Mr. Obama looks like the wolf in sheeps clothing. Or the sheep in wolf’s clothing. Or..someone trying to start a race war and not look like they are trying to start a race war. Or trying not to make race an issue by making race an issue and…excuse me. I am babbling.

eaglesdontflock on March 19, 2008 at 5:00 PM

peacenprosperity on March 19, 2008 at 4:55 PM

Mark my words, 2-3 weeks from now this will all be old news and Obama will be on his way to the Democrat nomination. Unless Obama can be indicted with his own actions or words rather than the words of his friends and supporters, this story will gain no traction.

Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM

You may have a point, but that does not negate my main point that Obama’s choice of churches was largely a political one.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 5:06 PM

Absolutely! I totally agree. Political choice made years ago. Now, however, he’s playing to a different audience. One that may not like his previous choices and will question his judgement.

Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Hey, I remember someone else pointing out this very thing here!

drjohn on March 19, 2008 at 5:12 PM

Hey, Allah- how about

“drjohn sees discrepancy in Obama rhetoric headline”?

I like the sound of it. ;-)

drjohn on March 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM

I predict Brian Ross will be taking a much-needed vacation from the 08 campaign trail real soon. He has veered far off the MSM reservation and he must be contained. He must be one of those right-wing corporate MSM shills for the Republican party I hear so much about over at DailyKos. He’s tellin’ the truth and stuff. About Democrats. He must be stopped. Next he’ll be looking at Glowbama’s voting record in the Senate, his ties to Weather Underground terrorists, and…well, it’s all too frightening to imagine. Yes, he must be contained. Reeducation! Reeducation!

Rational Thought on March 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Based on a quick survey of headlines on the major news sites, the Rev. Wright story is already receding into the political twilight. Americans aren’t particular interested in the guilt by association tactic when it involves a Democrat. Only Republicans are capable of being damaged by stuff like this.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 5:19 PM

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM

I do see your point. It is not by accident that he technically avoids the contradiction. He chooses his words very carefully, just like Billy Jeff. He needs to be pinned down when he does this so he can’t wiggle his way off the hook. So far, he has been given a pass. I don’t think he will be so fortunate in the future, unless he confines his interviews to CNN and MSNBC.

MarkM on March 19, 2008 at 5:20 PM

Fear not. This story has legs.

drjohn on March 19, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 5:11 PM

If the audience is blacks, young people, and liberal Democrats (his main supporters), I don’t think that they are going to care about this for the nomination. However, for the general election where moderate Democrats and Independents are needed to win the election, he may be toast.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM

I’ll bet there are a lot of African American Grandmother’s out there raising their grandkids that won’t appreciate how Obama threw his Grandmother under the bus.

roux on March 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM

That’s just one little nugget about the education of Ann Dunham. Read the Trib story for more…

Buy Danish on March 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Good link. Thanks. Although I keep seeing references to her as an anthropologist, the article doesn’t say whether she continued her schooling after the marriage. I suspect she didn’t, but was perhaps working on a grad degree and dropped out.

a capella on March 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM

roux on March 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM

His grandmother will give him a pass and redouble her efforts to campaign for him. Besides, his grandmother is white, so why will black grandmothers care?

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM

I think Obama is walking a fine line between calling Wright’s speeches anti-American and just controversial about certian issues.

I don’t remember hearing Obama say he thought the sermons he heard from Wright were, at times, anti-American. Rather, Obama said that the speeches were controversial, and revealed sentiments that have tanken root through out the African-American community.

PresidenToor on March 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM

PresidenToor on March 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM

Like I said above, the two statements by Obama in the ABC News text do not contradict each other. Saying that you weren’t present for anti-American sermons but did hear other controversial remarks is not contradictory. We may doubt his honesty on the subject, but we don’t really have a basis to say that he contradicted himself.

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM

NuclearPhysicist on March 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM

Exactly, although I think he’s going to lose the nomination too. But that’s based on gut feeling and previous experience with Southern Democrats. In the general he’s going to be talking to a whole different bunch of folk, and this story will resonate.

Oldnuke on March 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Get ready!..There’s going to be a large number of very bitter..very emotional..racially charged..hard core..riotous, Obama supporters, that could make the 1968 riots look like..boy scout camp.

Speakup on March 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Although I keep seeing references to her as an anthropologist…

a capella on March 19, 2008 at 5:26 PM

I read something at the NYT yesterday which made a correction to the anthropologist claim, but I can’t remember what I was looking at.

It is interesting to note that she met Barack’s father while studying Russian. I wonder if she was inspired to do that by her Mercer Island H.S. mentors?

Anyway, if you liked that link, you’ll like this one which asks if Barry is a “Marxist Mole” (hat tip: Connie) about The O’s Commie mentor Frank Marshall Davis. It goes off on a silly tangent at the end, but the nuts and bolts are solid.

Buy Danish on March 19, 2008 at 5:39 PM

ABC News took a closer look at the Barack Obama speech on race yesterday
posted at 2:03 pm on March 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Red Pill took a closer look at the Barack Obama speech on socialism yesterday.

Don’t be deceived by the slick-talking Obama (who’s only slick-talking when he has a prepared speech, not when he’s cross-examined on live TV).

Obama’s focus wasn’t on overcoming racism. His focus was on inspiring race conflict, class conflict, and gender conflict and using it to bring about the real “Change” that he wants.

Not many people seem to understand what “Change” Obama wants. Read the following quote and compare it to what you’ve heard Obama say in his speech yesterday:

We believe that the millions of working people have the power, if organized and united, to run this country, to create a government of, by, and for the people. The people of our country have the right and responsibility, faced with an exploitative, oppressive economic system, to alter or abolish it. We can eject the fat-cat financial donors from the election process, throw the scavengers out of the banks, eject the CEO’s from their golden parachutes, and elect regular, honest working people to represent us in government instead of corporate lawyers and multi-millionaires.

The struggles for the immediate demands and reforms needed by working people today are essential steps toward our ultimate goals of the revolutionary transformation of society and the economy, toward socialism and then communism. The constant battles over issues large and small are where workers learn the lesson that more fundamental changes are necessary and that people need socialism to have a truly humane society.

We, the working people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, need socialism, a system based on people’s needs, not on corporate greed.

The Communist Party has a program to get us there.

Now, if that weren’t enough, realize that the three active candidates in the race (Obama, Clinton, and McCain) all have worked to pass legislation that is anti-conservative and totally in line with the game plan of the socialists/communists:

Witness Socialized health care plans

Witness McCain-Feingold (”eject the fat-cat financial donors from the election process”).

Witness McCain-Kennedy (”Shifts in labor’s immigration policy have allowed a new level of unity with immigrant rights organizations.”)

Witness Obama’s speeches:
1)

But my journey is part of a larger journey – one shared by all who’ve ever sought to apply the values of their faith to our society. It’s a journey that takes us back to our nation’s founding, when none other than a UCC church inspired the Boston Tea Party [revolution] and helped bring an Empire to its knees.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.
A Politics of Conscience
Hartford, CT | June 23, 2007

2) “A MORE PERFECT UNION”,
a.k.a. Obama Nation: Using Racism To Form A More Socialist Union

Witness the following quotes from:
The Road to Socialism USA:
Unity for Peace, Democracy, Jobs and Equality

The most important of the potential allies of the working class are those who suffer special oppression and exploitation due to capitalism. All specially oppressed communities are well represented as part of the working class and also include people from other classes. Those who are part of the working class suffer the exploitation and social problems of all other workers, and in addition suffer from special oppression that is not solely based on class, such as racism, national discrimination, and male supremacy. Some people experience triple and quadruple oppression since they face several layers of intense exploitation, discrimination, and oppression.

The racially and nationally oppressed, women, youth, and immigrants all face types of special oppression, as do seniors, the Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) community, the disabled, and the mentally ill. Many features of special oppression cut across class lines and affect to some degree all members of each oppressed social group. They affect not only those who are workers or part of the professional and small business groups but to some extent even those from sections of the capitalist class. This common experience of oppression creates a wide basis for unity within each group and among all groups facing discrimination and oppression.

From its inception, the United States was built on racism. From the displacement and near genocide of Native Americans, to the enslavement of African Americans, to the theft of huge sections of Mexico, to the racist exclusion of Asian and Pacific Islander immigrants, to the current xenophobic hysteria against Arabs and South Asians, racism has been a convenient tool for the maintenance of power and super-profits by the ruling class at the expense of oppressed people and all workers.

Racism affects the unity of the working class at all levels. Racism is a tool that not only exploits racially oppressed people; it aids in the exploitation of white workers as well.

At the current stage of struggle, our role is to contribute toward building the broadest all-people’s front to defeat the ultra-right assault against the labor movement, the working class, racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, seniors, the environment, and democracy. We help identify for millions that the main enemy of progress is the most reactionary section of the transnationals, working to unite in action the leading role of the labor movement and the whole working class, in close alliance with the racially and nationally oppressed, women, and youth. That unity is broadened by uniting with other class and social forces, social movements, and political tendencies. This coalition seeks parallel action when possible with the more moderate and realistic section of the transnationals. The Party works to overcome all ideological and political obstacles to this essential broad unity, and works to build a much larger Communist Party.

When the strategic goal of a major defeat for the ultra-right has been achieved, shifting the balance of forces, the focus of the class and democratic struggles shifts to the goal of radically curbing the power of the transnationals as a whole. In this stage, the entire transnational capitalist class is the main enemy, and all sections of transnational capitalism are opponents. This coalition will work to build a mass people’s party free from any domination by any monopolies, which has the goal of winning a government free of monopoly control. The Party will work to achieve mass size and influence as part of building this advanced anti-monopoly level of struggle. The Party, helping prepare for the next phase of struggle, will conduct wider agitation and propaganda for socialism.

Red Pill on March 19, 2008 at 5:44 PM

Defeating the Ultra-Right

The only strategy capable of defeating the ultra-right is the widest possible unity of all the class and social forces whose interests run counter to those of the most reactionary section of the transnationals. Such an all-inclusive coalition would need to be led by labor and the working class in close alliance with the nationally and racially oppressed, women, and youth. It should include seniors, family farmers, the LGBT community, professionals and the self-employed, small business owners, and the disabled—everyone except the most reactionary section of transnational capital. This unity will include an ever-growing Left-Center political coalition that includes the Democratic Party, left and progressive independents who recognize the danger the ultra-right poses, and all social movements on the major issues of our day. This all-people’s front should strive to, and be able to, attract many who voted Republican in the past.

The struggle to defeat the ultra-right is a democratic struggle that advances the class struggle and that has the potential to shift the balance of forces in a direction more favorable for winning working class victories and for mounting offensive struggles.

The struggle against the ultra-right, against the most reactionary sector of the transnationals, and for achieving a defeat of its political power is of great significance. However, such a defeat alone will not end the ultra-right danger. There will still be the danger that the most extreme reactionaries, militarists, and racists in our country will seek to impose fascism—an open terrorist dictatorship of big capital. Only the replacement of capitalism—which gives birth to these political trends—by socialism can finally do away with the ultra-right threat.

Defeat of the ultra-right in the political/electoral arena will substantially weaken the most reactionary sector of the monopolies. In doing so, their defeat objectively weakens all monopolies and capitalism as a whole. The struggle against that sector of the ruling class also serves the purpose of uniting, educating, and assembling a major portion of the forces needed for the next historic task of the working class, that of struggling to radically curb the monopolies as a whole. The struggle against the ultra-right helps millions of people understand more clearly who the next main strategic opponent is and who can and must unite to achieve that next goal. It teaches millions about methods of struggle, forms of organization, and the demands necessary to move forward.

A major, lasting rebuff to the ultra-right, rendered by the all-people’s front, will represent a qualitative change in the domestic balance of forces. It will make possible a new stage of struggle in our country. More important than the specific defeat of the ultra-right will be the growing unity of labor-led mass movements that makes such a defeat of ultra-right politics possible.

The ultra-right promotes anti-democratic electoral methods. Manipulation of the political process—including racist vote suppression, extreme partisan redistricting, and use of electronic voting machines with no paper trail for recounts—shows that the right to vote and to have every vote count has yet to be achieved. Major reforms, such as proportional representation, abolition of the Electoral College, and elimination of barriers to ballot access for minor parties, are needed to guarantee basic democratic voting rights.

Grassroots organizing around a program for working people’s needs is key to shift the balance of forces to the left. Building a multiracial, multinational movement and expanding union organization and other movements into the South and rural areas are crucial to overcoming the racism and bigotry utilized by the ultra-right.

The labor movement has made significant shifts in its organization and outlook, and now leads many coalitions for progress and change, and leads defensive struggles against the attacks of the corporations and the ultra-right. Labor’s intensified participation in electoral struggles has resulted in the election of thousands of union members to office, the creation and development of labor’s own independent political apparatus, and better communication with, education of, and mobilization of union membership. Increased efforts to organize workers, to build relationships with allies, and to fight in the political arena have made labor the key element of most major progressive coalitions and election campaigns. The struggle for the unity of the labor movement on issues must be the foundation on which the broadest coalition can be built.

The labor movement has played a leadership role in building an independent, issue-based worker-to-worker political apparatus since the mid-1990s. This workplace and neighborhood outreach, which mobilized a quarter-million union members in the 2004 presidential election, is the foundation for year-round organizing and is key to electing union activists to public office. Similar issue-based door-to-door grassroots efforts by African American, Latino, Asian American, women’s, youth, gay and lesbian, and environmental organizations strengthen the voice and power of the Left within the all-people’s front against the ultra-right. Even with ultra-right control of the Federal government, people’s legislative victories, such as increasing the minimum wage, can be won on an issue-by-issue basis locally, statewide, and even nationally.

Third parties which recognize the need in this period for Left-Center unity to defeat the ultra-right can play an important and positive role toward shifting the balance of forces, and moving closer to the formation of a viable anti-monopoly third party in our country. Some successful projects work by building local independent electoral formations, some by utilizing fusion tactics, and some by building national networks or parties—such efforts can make a great contribution to the defeat of the ultra-right. Some, however, adopt tactics which divide them from the main forces able to sustain long-term independent political action.

The Communist Party, as part of the developing all-peoples front to defeat the ultra-right, participates fully with the labor movement and its allies in building a strong people’s electoral force.

The Communist Party’s approach to people’s electoral politics is a basic aspect of our view that the current stage of struggle requires an all-people’s front to defeat the ultra-right. This is essential strategy for this historical period, not just a temporary shift in tactics. Ultra-right political dominance challenges the vast majority of people in this country—even including some sectors of monopoly capital—and very broad unity is both possible and necessary to bring about a major political shift. Without this shift, the people’s movements will be continually on the defensive. Without building this broad unity, the ultra-right will succeed in splitting their opposition, will continue to succeed in setting the priorities and agenda for the nation, and will risk ever-greater military adventurism in pursuit of an illusory global dominance. Without first defeating the ultra-right section of monopoly, the working class and its allies cannot proceed to radically curb the power of the monopolies as a whole.

Our Party makes important contributions to the struggle to defeat the ultra-right. Communists clarify who the main enemy in this period is, what the class and political nature of the main enemy is, and the need for an all-people’s front. Communists help to unite the core forces of the alliance around the labor movement, and bring a high level of commitment, devotion, and activity to the struggle. The Communist Party is increasingly recognized for these contributions. The main limitation on our role has been the small size of the Party. We work to build grassroots Party clubs to expand our independent base in the working class and to expand our ability to directly mobilize workers in workplaces and neighborhoods. Communist candidates at the local and state levels are vital to building unity in the people’s movement, strengthening the Left, and to organizing a strong grassroots base for a more advanced program.

In the course of its participation in anti-ultra-right struggles, the Party agitates and helps prepare for the next phase of struggle, the building of an anti-monopoly people’s party, all the while educating and advocating for socialism.

Analyzing the objective stages of struggle is essential to developing correct long-term strategy; it is not a mechanical prescription. These are stages of struggle, not stages of social development from one socio-economic system to another. The social system remains capitalism through both the anti-ultra-right and anti-monopoly stages of struggle. There is no firm, complete barrier between these stages of struggle. In the current stage of struggle, while making the most reactionary sector of the transnationals the main opponent and developing an anti-ultra-right consciousness, Communists seek to spread general anti-monopoly consciousness and socialist consciousness and to wage specific anti-monopoly struggles. While the ultra-right is the focus of the overall struggle, a transnational not part of the ultra-right may be the opponent in a political fight or a labor contract or strike struggle.

Some demands and victories that begin to curb the power of monopoly as a whole may be won in part or in whole in the course of the struggle against its ultra-right section. Some essential people’s demands may not be won completely or at all in the anti-monopoly stage and may have to await the succeeding stage of working people’s power and the construction of a socialist society. It is not the specific demands but rather the strategy of that particular period of struggle and the level of unity that develops which are the most crucial factors in defining the stage of struggle. The shift between stages is not a mechanical calculation but rather is based on a changed balance of forces—when the people’s forces gain strength and unity sufficient to administer significant defeats to the ultra-right, sufficient to decisively shift the balance of forces, advancing to the anti-monopoly stage becomes possible.

Red Pill on March 19, 2008 at 5:54 PM

Actually, Barack’s mother, (Stanley) Ann Dunham, spent her formative years in Mercer Island, Washington, attending high school there, before ending up in Hawaii.

But consistent with the 1950s, there were undercurrents of turmoil. In 1955, the chairman of the Mercer Island school board, John Stenhouse, testified before the House Un-American Activities Subcommittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party.
That’s just one little nugget about the education of Ann Dunham. Read the Trib story for more…
Buy Danish on March 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Wow. That takes Guilt by Association to a new level doesn’t it.

Barack Obama’s Mother’s High School’s School Board Chairman was once a Communist. Chilling Revelation./sarc

Relevant Movie Quote:

“Dark Helmet: I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.
Lone Starr: What’s that make us?
Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing!”

Warning for you, if you strech the guilt by association thing too far, you are going to damage and make a mockery of the linkage between Obama and his 20 year pastor.

New_Jersey_Buckeye on March 19, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.