Wait a minute. MSM? Methylsulfonylmethane? What?
The True Believers discounted any possible damage long ago (when, that is, they haven’t been able to blame it on Clinton somehow), and are predictably dismissive here as well - predictably and, sadly, insularly.
The Still-Persuadables, however, cannot be expected to see this as anything other than throwing an old friend to the wolves when it became politically inconvenient.
Full disclosure: Not a Dem and I will be voting for McCain. That said, after Obama’s Philly speech on race, I was satisfied with his position and response. I won’t be voting for him, but it’s not because of Reverend Wright.
His refusal in Philly to disown Wright has generally been assessed as gracious by some, politically calculated by others (I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the former). His latest response doesn’t seem contradictory to me, and he handled it fine, in my book.
That said, I wonder how this will play with some of the demographic groups Obama is already weak in–e.g., blue collar workers, the elderly–especially after his “bitter” comments. Will this be seen as a final confirmation of prior suspicions? Maybe. I’ll be watching the polls. This has to be giving some of the superdelegates pause. Maybe it blows over, but Hillary has to be in a perma-smirk these days.
This race is fascinating to someone without a personal stake in it, I have to tell you. Best reality show on TV.
deleted. double post.
Kind of like what Clinton did to Ferraro rather quickly, huh? I know, I know, Ferrero technically resigned, but if you think that’s the real story, well . . .
Same with the guy who weant to Columbia.
What’s your point?
The point is that this “renunciation” is more likely to cost him votes, by making him appear as expediency-minded and hypocritical as most other pols, than if he had ridden it out, making him appear loyal and principled.
When Clinton did that with Ferraro, since you bring it up as a comparison despite its different nature, was expected of her. What Obama did is contrary to the above-it-all image he has tried to portray of himself, an image that after all is the *central thesis of his campaign. *
Wasn’t that clear?
No.
And the die hard Clintonites will make it out to be another glorious setback for the Obama campaign I guess.
If Obama were truly expediency-minded, as some have pointed out, he would have kicked Wright while he was down like the rest of the media did. Instead, he gave an uplifting and complex speech on race and embraced the man about as much as was appropriate given what the public dialogue was at the time. The fact that Wright has put himself out there and made disparaging statements towards Obama and his campaign means that Obama can be a little more curt. And truth be told, Obama isn’t exactly eviscerating the guy here.
It’s been said elsewhere, but those who see fit are still going to hold up Wright as an example where Obama’s judgement was perhaps less than stellar. I do think the Wright stuff has been damaging. It’s damaging or we wouldn’t be talking about it still. It doesn’t particularly hurt my opinion of the man, but I’m not so wide-eyed about my politicians anymore.
No.
Where do you get the impression that Obama is suppose to above-it-all?
Just because someone’s approach to politicking and government is to attempt to take the high road and bring something different and better to the picnic doesn’t mean he has to blindly stay in that lane and on that road as an out-of-control semi approaches, just to please ElvisL1ves, to his peril. He can veer away for a moment, using his skills of assessment and judgment of the instant danger, and still be on the same course as before when the danger has been averted.
I’m an appreciator of the beauty of the view of the park from a bench in front of my house; however, if i know a piano is about to fall on that spot and I save myself, how do I not continue to be an appreciator of the the beauty of that view of the park?
Wasn’t that clear?
So one the one hand, the Clintonites talk about how Obama isn’t “tough” enough to be President, yet when he fights back he’s betraying his theme of transcending the usual politics.
The “Still-Persuadables” can see through this spin. They also recognize the difference between tough and unscrupulous.
From pretty much everything he’s said.
Just because someone’s approach to politicking and government is to attempt to take the high road and bring something different and better to the picnic doesn’t mean he has to blindly stay in that lane and on that road as an out-of-control semi approaches, just to please ElvisL1ves, to his peril.
[/quote]
Pleasing me has nothing to do with it. *Doing * what he claims to stand for, “taking the high road and bringing something different and better” as you put it, has everything to do with it. Winning over people who aren’t buying that line yet has everything to do with it.
Nope. Once he takes the route of simple expediency, he can no longer easily convince the still-persuadables who are now making up their minds that he’s above it. Once he ducks a transient, fairly-minor problem, especially during Decision Time, he can no longer easily convince them that he’ll face and overcome major problems as President.
This wasn’t a truck or a piano, just a mosquito. A strong leader, or for that matter a good pol, would have known better than to undermine himself in this way.
Actually, indistinguishable nailed it back in Post #2.
Oh I don’t remember I read it somewhere online…Andrew Sullivan, or maybe here or maybe I dreamed it. Don’t put too much weight behind it, but it would certainly be interesting to hear from other members of the congrergation.
This wasn’t fighting back. This was *retreating *, and from an indirect attack at that.
Yes, *his * spin.
And the demonstrated absence of either.
it’s obvious that those who don’t like Obama will see it as expediency and those who like Obama will declare it a forceful, honest condemnation. Personally I think he was actually very offended by Rev. Wright’s comments. Does that make me a true believer? Yes. I am a believer in his sincerity and his intelligence. Is that a bad thing? Of course, the Clointonistas (see I can do it too) throw out True Believer and such as if we are brainwashed. Nonsense.
He’s being painted into a tight corner.
Ignore Wright and people start questioning whether he actually agrees with him.
Come out in defense of Wright and people KNOW you agree with him.
Condemn Wright and people think he’s being an expeditious sell-out. There’s a fluttering among some black voters that Obama is approaching this. Look for Hillary to capitalize on it somehow.
There’s no way he can come out looking like a good guy. I don’t envy him.
I admit I cringed when I saw his vehement repudiation on the news today because I’d rather he ignore the brouhaha and continue to pound the “more important issues” drum that he pounds so well. Also, I still don’t think Wright has said anything that controversial. It’s just performance art now, shocking only to those who aren’t used to racial rhetoric. If we weren’t in the midst of a campaign, I might actually find it a bit more enjoyable.
I think this hurts Obama with swing voters, and further hurts him with white, blue collar voters. It strains credulity that Wright has somehow, only in the last few weeks, become some raving maniac who needs to be “denounced and rejected”.
n.b.: It doesn’t affect my view of Obama. I’m pretty forgiving about this sort of stuff-- if I only voted for politicians with no kooky friends or associates, I probably wouldn’t vote at all. And it’s not like he was getting policy advice from Wright at any time. But I’m an elitist, and I’m above all that blue collar bitterness. 
Well, it’s only now because only now has Wright made it personal and ascribed his views to all Blacks and black churches, which would include Obama.
ETA:
Could someone tell me what MSM means?
“These days”??
How does its nature differ in any way other than the obvious one (that Wright is not an Obama sock-puppet)?
Mainstream Media. Also known as the Devil.