She's the "most electable" but the name Wright never entered the conversations?

I'm having trouble with this.

So she's not not playing the race card.

That the Wright story has "shocked" so many is unfortunate. That Dems aren't coming together to oppose these types of attacks is truly sad. McCain has publically opposed using Wright against Obama (though I think he's happy to play nice guy while his wingnuts make the assault). Why won't Hillary publically take the higher road as well? I guess because it's not politically expedient right now, the same reason she voted for some bill back in 2002 about authorizing some use of force somewhere. I hope this comes back to bite just as hard.

If she wants us to believe she is a good manager, she needs to know what her surrogates are saying. These aren't some interns running their mouths. The people working the superdelegates are among the most important staffers on her campaign right now. Especially since they are the only way she can wrest the nomination from Obama.

She did know what they were talking about. If she says she didn't, she's lying.

Obama could have severed ties with this anti american Rev Wright the minute he heard him issue those hateful sermons. Instead he LIED that he had ever heard him say anything hateful. Then during his "excuse everyone for being racist" speech, he admitted he did hear Wright sermons.
Hillary should be pointing out. I think it is very important to all Americans to know that Obama has such close ties to this hateful man.
Hillary had nothing to do with bringing up Rev Wright. As she is in a Campaign why should she not question Obama's close ties to this Rev Wright???

Sorry -- on this one I have to support HRC (and since I decided months ago that I couldn't bring myself to vote for her, I assure you it pains me.) But 'electability' does matter, especially to the superdelegates, and if there IS a factor that suggests your opponent may have electability problems, then it seems appropriate to raise that issue with the superdelegates.

This isn't one of her made-up stories accusing Obama of something he hasn't done (and there are *many* of those!!!) It's an indisputable fact: there is a video of portions of a few of Wright's sermons: they are shocking and disgusting and are being seen by voters. Are they so shocking that some voters have been turned away from Obama? Probably. How many voters, whether they will stay away, what the long-term effect may be is all unknown - by everyone. I'm trusting and hoping that once they consider the situation more, most voters will realize that it's the character of the man on the ballot that matters and put it aside.

But right now, however, the ultimate effect is unknown and it's something that could affect his electability next fall. Why should she not mention it?

All this is just depressing.

Richardson, Edwards, Obama, Gravel, Dodd, Biden, anyone. I would have loved to see win this November.

I've never liked Hillary and I don't care which Republicrat get elected this November.

If we lived with 8 years of Bush, we can live through another 8.

I just don't care anymore.

I agree with Matthew Weaver and idiotic is consistent.

I think Clinton should speak out against McKook's spiritual adviser that wants to eliminate Islam too.

Breaking NEWS!!!!!!!!!

Keith Olberman is reporting that 3 employees in the state department was fried in Jan for attempting to look into BO passport files...WOW...

This is scary and desperate stuff. Who are these guys and what were they attempting to do? Some people are obviously desperate and will do anything to keep BO from the presidency...

Obama, and us, against Hillary, McCain, Bush and the full force of the Government. Let's hope the Secret Service is above reproach.....

Why is it so hard for people to understand the cause of Reverend Wright's fury. I understand it. It is a universal human reaction to having been enslaved and shamed up to the present day.

On Easter Week of 1916 an Irish Rebel Leader led a symbolic rebellion against a tyrannical regime. He wrote the following before going out to fight and die. Like this Irish Rebel Leader, Reverend Wright is just another answer to the poet's question: "What happens to a dream deferred".

Here is one thing that did happen during Easter 1916 in Dublin.

THE REBEL

I am come of the seed of the people, the people that sorrow,
That have no treasure but hope,
No riches laid up but a memory
Of an Ancient glory.
My mother bore me in bondage, in bondage my mother was born,
I am of the blood of serfs;
The children with whom I have played,
the men and women with whom I have eaten
Have had masters over them, have been under the lash of masters,
And, though gentle, have served churls;
Their hands that have touched mine,
the dear hands whose touch is familiar to me,
Have worn shameful manacles,
have been bitten at the wriest by manacles
Have grown hard with the manacles and the task-work of strangers.
I am flesh of the flesh of these lowly, I am bone of their bone,
I that have never submitted;
I that have a soul greater than the souls of my people’s masters
I that have vision and prophecy and the gift of fiery speech,
I that have spoken with God on the top of His holy hill.

And because I am of the people, I understand the people,
I am sorrowful with their sorrow, I am hungry with their desire:
My heart has been heavy with the grief of mothers,
My eyes have been wet with the tears of children,
I have yearned with old wistful men,
And laughed or cursed with young men,

Their shame is my shame, and I have reddened for it,
Reddened for that they have served, they who should be free,
Reddened for that they have gone in want,
while others have been full,
Reddened for that they have walked in fear of lawyers and of their jailers
With their writs of summons and their handcuffs,
Men mean and cruel!
I could have borne stripes on my body
rather than this shame of my people.

And now I speak, being full of vision;
I speak to my people,
and I speak in my people’s name to the masters of my people.
I say to my people that they are holy, that they are august,
despite their chains,
That they are greater than those that hold them, and stronger and purer,
That they have but need of courage,
and to call on the name of their God,
God the unforgetting, the dear God that loves the peoples
For whom He died naked, suffering shame.
And I say to my people’s masters: Beware,
Beware of the thing that is coming,
beware of the risen people,
Who shall take what ye would not give.
Did ye think to conquer the people,
Or that Law is stronger than life and than men’s desire to be free?
We will try it out with you, ye that have harried and held,
Ye that have bullied and bribed,
tyrants, hypocrites, liars!

Patrick Pearse

I won't be surprised if the sick, distorted Hillarybots somehow consider this a good thing.

And as always, here is where the fascist, racist Hillary freaks (a very small percentage of her support in the real world, a very large percentage here) go off the rails:

Now imagine that he was known for his fiery sermons against African Americans

Please, point out Wright's fiery sermons against whites. I think he's largely silly for a number of reasons, but he simply never gave a single sermon "against whites." Not once, ever. I absolutely defy you to back up this claim.

That goes for all of you psycho racists traipsing around here lately, including Weaver and gotalife...

If Wright is so bad, why did Bill and Hillary invite him to the White House????

Wright was Clinton guest in 1998.
Photo:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Jeremiah_Wright_was_White_House_guest.html

Coleridge78,

I am NOT racist and take offense to yours and others BS trying to equate any criticism of Obama as racist. If you want Obama as the Democrats affirmative action candidate wherein you refuse to look at his record, his past, his associations, his views/values, and so forth, simply for the sake of his color, speeches, and such, go for it but know that you are promoting and giving a candidate a pass because of your and his racism. Do not mistake this and do not be so ignorant and assinine as to try and label everyone else as racist. I'm not the one with 20 years tied to a racist and anti-American church and community.

Parsing, parsing, parsing again. Oh, SHE'S unaware of anyone doing it, but we're not saying the rest of us aren't. Just that she's personally unaware of anyone specifically doing it. What a transparent attempt at plausible deniability. Let's the rest of us keep trying to paint the "angry black man" label on him while we make it seem the candidate herself is in the dark. Dirty. Desperate. Sad.

Politicians using Wright to scare up votes shows the spectacular dumbness amongst the majority of the electrotrate

At best Wright is a angry pastor who frequently used hate speech to protest against injustices against a disenfranchised community. His words are far less offensive compared to the injustices committed against black community by the forces which control this nation.

Is it a surprise then that the American electorare who elected Bush in fear would let bastards who practice politics like prostitution push incendiary buttons of race and religon whenever there is no other way to generate votes- trigger fear to force people collapse on the knees and whimper.

It's not about Hillary or Bush or Obama- it's about how fear politcs remains a very accepted practice in mainstream politics.

If the socially illiterate electorate vote on the basis of fear tactics and not based on two wars, crippling economy, corruption in D.C., etc it's a reminder they will inevitably make a choice against their own interest.

I call bullshit on Hillary. Her campaign is clearly pushing the story or they'd deny it. And if she is not directly in charge of such a high level decision as to whether to push the story, then she is even more Nixonian than I thought in ruling by plausible deniability. It means she has given an order like "Do whatever it takes, but don't tell me about all the gory details."

And the point of Bill Clinton inviting Wright is not that he's as closely associated with Wright as Obama, it's that it corroborates Obama's repeated statements that Wright was not some known out-of-the-mainstream nutcake like Hannity's portraying him. If that was Wright's rep, he would not have beeen invited to the White House.

In the Watergate days this was called "the non-denial denial," and we all knew what that sort of denial meant.

I hope she is pushing the story. The Obama camp has been talking about how unelectable Hillary is since day one. This story could affect his electability. But once again, we're only supposed to talk about these things when Obama says it's OK. Saying the issue will affect his electability is not the same as saying he's guilty of anything. This is a political campaign, not a support group. There's a difference between what you say in private conversation to supers and what you use as a campaign weapon. Obama has known Wright was a liability for more than a year, and was hoping the issue wouldn't come up. That's not Hillary's doing, and the whole thing doesn't magically disappear because he gave a pretty speech.

Hillary tied defending him against the Muslim charges on 60 Minutes, and most of you used that as an occasion to spread more bullshit about her. After that, she doesn't owe him anything.

Aren't we a bit touchy, Matthew Weaver? You and others ask us to examine Obama's relationship to Wright and imply about one from the other, and yet you object when the shoe is on the other (white) foot.

It's unbelievable how much in denial many white Americans are about white racism. All you have to do is browse the Internet comment boards, read Craigslist personal ads, count the number of black Senators.... C'mon, don't treat us like we're two year olds!

Obama is a fundamentally and thoroughly honest intellectual, and mention of his grandmother - well that's something I hope every American with white forbears comes out and says - the truth!!

I don't think Matthew Weaver racist, but he sounds defensive and protective of racists. Maybe his parents? Or his friends? But I won't hold that against you.

FX played American History X a couple times tonight. Very apropos.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com - Washington Post

well, Wright is a fruitcake, and seems to have a lot of what I call "dignitude," the amped up self-righteousness, self-pity and complete lack of sense of responsibility for one's own failure that you can find in a lot of urban neighborhoods. Does he also subscribe to the KKK owns Snapple storyline? What's his position on reparations?

Me: I say Repatriation Now!

This reaks of the IRON *****`s involvement!!!I mean it has her finger prints all over it.But not to fear Bill Richardson endorsed Obama this morning and that will be a big help with the remaing States.

Hey Razor

As long as we're calling bullshit here, I call bullshit on your response to the 60 Minutes thing. Instead of trotting out the tired "as far as I know" response, why don't you honestly answer a couple of questions? Was Hillary's first response "Of course not"? Did she then say "There's no basis for that"? Assuming you have a shred of honesty, please tell me how those comments are anything other than a defense of Obama. Is it your contention that she knew she would be asked the same question three times, and decided to save her awful answer for the third question, as some sort of evil genius strategy? And why are her first two statements so inconsequential that you and people like you never even acknowledge that she said them, but her third statement is somehow a bulletproof indictment of her motives?

Kroft kept asking the question as if he had something up his sleeve he was going to spring on her. After defending Obama completely, it was only reasonable that by the third time she would say "as far as I know." How far out on a limb is she supposed to go in testifying to another person's faith?

Assuming you don't have the intellectual integrity to answer my questions, I'm curious to see if any Obama supporter can answer questions like these without engaging in personal attacks.

Once again, the Obama folks can't let it go.. Hillary hasn't said BOO about this nor has anyone on the campaign and you are all here blasting her for playing the race card! I think Obama let this whole White thing out on purpose because he needed to give a speech on the racial divide in order to get it out there and get past it. So let's get past it. Hillary is still my candidate and one more reason I support her is because she isn't someone who would listen to a Reverend White sermon like the ones on the internet and not denounce the remarks immediately. I think Obama tried for three months to figure out how best to spin it and his speech was the spin. Now he has to figure out a way to link Clinton to his passport and try to diminish her role as first lady, he is a very busy politician.

Greg et al,
I think your point would be much more compelling if you quoted Lanny Davis' question to Obama and tell who he is. He was one of Bill C's prominent legal advisors and is now a supporter and advisor for Hillary. Here's the question he put on the Huffington Post.

"If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?"

I would hope that a reporter would ask Hillary if she knew that one of her and her husband's long-time advisors, Lanny Davis, had suggested in a question to Obama that Obama's pastor's words were like the words of a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

I would also ask her if she had taken the time or had one of her staff members take the time to actually get to know Pastor Wright, to learn that he is an amazingly compassionate man who has ministered to and respected many white people and had many positive things to sasy about prominent white Americans who have uplifted black people, including most prominently, Abraham Lincoln. He has said inflammatory things that Obama has rejected, but he has also said many things that Hillary and Bill and many other moderate to progressive people can celebrate.

She can't do this kind of thing, because she is desperate and prone to do deceitful and some blatantly dishonest things to win. She has insufficient character and judgment for the presidency.