A New Problem for Obama

[BeatleBoot]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/a-little-parsin.html

After first denying it, Obama now admits he
did hear Wright make 'controversial remarks'

Now, Barack Obama says he did hear Wright's sermons that "could be controversial." If he disagreed with them, why didn't those comments move Obama to repudiate Wright then? Especially since the campaign knew Wright could pose a problem.

Lord knows Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech on race is going to get dissected like a high school biology experiment, but one element jumped out as he delivered it a little while ago. Earlier, Obama said he had never himself heard the Rev. Jeremiah Wright make the kinds of comments that sparked the furor over the last several days.

But in this morning's speech, Obama said this about Wright:

"For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -– just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

It's not quite a repudiation of his earlier comments published on Huffington Post. In that piece Obama wrote:

"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign."

The difference is that Obama said then, essentially, that he had not witnessed the sermons captured in videos now posted on YouTube. But his comments today raise the question, to paraphrase history: What did he hear, and when? And what did he hear during Wright's sermons that "could be controversial?"

If he disagreed with them, why didn't those comments move Obama to repudiate Wright then? Especially since the campaign knew Wright could pose a problem.
Obama supporters will argue that such questions are focusing on the trees instead of the forest. Given Obama's attempt to direct the campaign forward, that may be a fair take on it all. But to get into the forest, you have to pass those first few trees.

-- Scott Martelle

[Eric J in MN]

duplicate NT

NT

[billbuckhead]

2. Hillary's opponent blamed society for his 20 year religious mentor being a bigot

[rug]

6. If a candidate ever admits to posting in GDP he would lose before the laughter faded.

[Eric J in MN]

1. If a DU-er runs for office, should he be required to tell the public...

...each controversial post he saw at DU, and when?

[Danieljay]

3. Beattle, take your worthless blog back to the LATimes. Perhaps they will actually listen or read

what Obama said next time.

Why are you posting this crap?

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Obama has a method of dropping the shoes one at a time.

[Voice for Peace]

11. here's another shoe

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid463869411?bctid=416343938

[uponit7771]

5. Everyone except FAUX news ANAL-ist know the context Obama was refering to when they showed comments

...by his former pastor the news were REPLAYING.

Also, Wright has been in the ministry for 40 years and all FAUX news can she is less than a minute of "inflammatory" comments?

[BuyingThyme]

7. Gawd, who the fuck cares.

[Megahurtz]

8. Way to beat a DEAD HORSE!

:sarcasm:

[emilyg]

9. Thanks.

[Kokonoe]

10. What could be controversial to you, may be truth to someone else.

Hes not going to make a list of controversies for each person.

[jenmito]

12. He said he DID hear controversial remarks...just not THOSE ones:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5146023&mesg_id=5146023

[psquare]

13. Yes - A new problem for Obama is that

some DU'ers have not gotten above grade school reading comprehension standards, and are now trying to drag everything and everyone down to their level of misunderstanding.

It's bad enough that RW Talk Radio and MSM pundits operate on this level, but to join in the muck of the misinterpretation of one of the most artfully crafted and skillfully delivered speeches of our time (which most of us instinctively knew was going to happen no matter the eloquence) just points out their affinity to dittoheads.

During one of Adlai Stevenson's presidential campaigns, allegedly, a supporter told him that he was sure to "get the vote of every thinking man" in the U.S., to which Stevenson is said to have replied, "Thank you, but I need a majority to win."

[Ka hrnt]

14. What concerns me...

Yes, there's the loophole/truth (depending on your view) that he didn't hear the exact same quotes that were played on the news. Assuming that's true, though....Obama has a problem: there are OTHER "controversial" quotes out there. I have no doubt the GOP will find them, and we'll be hearing them pop-up throughout the GE. And that's bad news for Obama. And don't bother telling me this "historic" (:eyes:) speech today is going to make it go away or make it all better. Kerry got swift-boated for stories and a few shaky photocopies. Now the Right's 527s (I hope I got that # right...) have VIDEO, apparently with more on the way.

For the record, my take on "The Speech":

The people proclaiming this is one of the greatest speeches EVAR need to get a grip. Yeah, it was a good speech. But from a political standpoint, the damage from "Pastorgate" is done; those whose minds it would change are not likely to sit down and listen to a ~35-minute speech. One of the reasons the Gettysburgh address is famous is for its brevity--~2.5 minutes. MLK's full speech was ~17, and really, the only thing the vast majority of people can quote of it is the "I have a dream..." section. Obama's was ~twice as long as MLK's. How many "average joes" do you think are going to listen to the whole thing? How many will listen to any of it when they find out it's 35 minutes long? From a purely political standpoint, I view this as a bit of a dud in this regard.

Sorry, I don't see this being that noteworthy. A good, impassioned speech, yes. Historic? I'll be amazed if it is.

[Johnny__Motown]

15. No, he denied seeing the specific clips we have seen in the MSM, not any controversial comments

That is simply false


I am sorry your candidate lost. Please stop slandering our nominee.

[femrap]

16. Maybe BO thought the Wright

question would go away and his white lie could pass. But it didn't...which makes me just the more distrustful of him.