I think he means the tendency in national politics to play the "guilt by association" game.

I think that's a pretty petty parsing. I think it's relatively obvious, he knows he messed up, he didn't think these things would be as big a deal as they have become, and he's been a step or two behind in regards to these allegations.

The interesting thing is that those of us who have been following this race have always known that Obama would face tough questions on Rezko and Wright. So, if he weathers this storm, and it's true he is doing it belatedly, then I don't know what other ammunition the other camps have on him. It's always been that he's an anti-patriot angry black man who's in bed with a shifty Arab power broker. If those aspersions begin to fall away, what left does the right have against Obama? I just haven't heard anything.

No, I think he's saying "B"--Hillary and others don't have these problems, because they've already distanced and dissociated themselves from the troublemakers. And I think it's reading a lot into his statements to suggest that there's something morally laudable about his failure to sufficiently distance himself from these figures before now.

I'm a little more inclined to think (b). Sounds like he was saying he has been in the process of distancing himself (which isn't true) since he got to Washington and hasn't been there long enough to have had a real chance. A little wonky a thought, and not quite as clear as Obama's responses tend to be. Curious.

OK, here's my opinion. He knew he would have to disassociate himself with Wright at some point. He didn't want to. He's obviously friends with Wright, and while I don't think he agrees with everything Wright says, I think he's a bit more open-minded about judging Wright.

In other words: Obama's open-mindedness is what's at stake. And in that way, he's probably right: The longer he stays in Washington, the less likely he is to retain public relationships with those who have controversial views.

It's probably one thing Obama DOESN'T like about running for President. But it's a price he's obviously willing to pay.

I think he's saying he was in Illinois (not physically far from his church and Rezko) until he went to Washington just a few years ago. Is that so hard to parse? Compared to Clinton or McCain who have been distanced from their home churches, local supporters, etc. for many years.

As I read it, his defense is that he is naive, but not irresponsible.

Where are the Hillary trolls?
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Atrios loves to stir up mischief:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_03_16_archive.html#1284080448845459186

Those radical black pastors..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U

"I'm not sure precisely how to parse this. "
I'm sure precisely how to parse this.
Obama is a jerk.
Obama 's long time preacher and mentor said terrible vulgar things about President Clinton and senator Clinton. Instead of apologizing, he take a swipe at senator Clinton.

Well, I read this to mean that once you have been in Washington for a while then you treat all your personal relationships as political conveniences.

Maybe that makes for good politics, but it makes for lousy human beings.

I found the clip from the interview confusing, too. I'll have to watch it in context. This is about the only assessment that's made any sense to me so far:

"In other words: Obama's open-mindedness is what's at stake. And in that way, he's probably right: The longer he stays in Washington, the less likely he is to retain public relationships with those who have controversial views.

It's probably one thing Obama DOESN'T like about running for President. But it's a price he's obviously willing to pay."

Thank you, SCMadden!

I think Obama sympathizers have major blinders on. It is called politics as usual and Barack Obama is just another one, what is so hard about that truth?

For the sake of your rose colored world views, I hope we don't see too much more of this stuff, or half the democratic party will be running off a cliff together!

Ok, I read the transcript. Makes more sense.

You know, he actually talks about the ECONOMY for a LONG TIME in this interview? Shocking. I didn't think that was allowed. Especially since he seems to know a lot about it and have some good ideas. Shouldn't this be stopped?

(snark)

McCain/Clinton '08!!!!

Silaro wrote:

"How many of us have friends or acquaintances that do or say things that we wouldn't? Does that mean we should be stained by their actions? By that that contorted logic, I must be a swinger, a smoker, and a criminal because i know those who are or have been."

True enough, but would you send your children to those friends for weekly lessons in swinging, smoking, criminality, or bigotry? I think not.

And if you did, do you think you could claim, as a political candidate, to support strong family values, anti-smoking policies, respect for the law, or post-racial/ethnic unity?

To put it in context, you have to understand that he met both Wright and Rezko in the late '80s or early '90s, before he entered politics. People not in politics form all sorts of friendships and acquaintances and don't weigh those associations with an eye to appearances. People who've spent decades in Washington do pay attention to appearances and police their associations accordingly.

He certainly stating a Washington reality. I can't tell from the transcripts if he's making a value judgment on that reality one way or the other. Still, he seems to be acknowledging those political pressures and acknowledging that those pressures impact him, just as they do everyone else in Washington.

Phoebe Fay wrote:

"To put it in context, you have to understand that he met both Wright and Rezko in the late '80s or early '90s, before he entered politics. People not in politics form all sorts of friendships and acquaintances and don't weigh those associations with an eye to appearances"

Yes, but from what I understand, Oprah left that church a long time ago. Obama not only stayed but raised his children under the teachings of that church. Why? If he was really a "post-racial" man he wouldn't make that choice even if he weren't in politics. My guess is that Michelle's preference to remain in that church may have been quite strong.

since when "being polite and calm" mean " being tactical" and "being honest and open" mean "naive" and "clumsy". maybe I need some time off from the election stuff...

I think what he's said is 'I'm not infected by the Washington tendency to shun people that have been in my life if it means I might lose some points in a poll somewhere.' He has condemned the things he didn't agree with but not the people.

I love the way Obama's response combines raw intelligence with ready empathy.

And his charm is so natural.

It's no wonder that in today's whacky world he finds himself pitted against someone whose "charm" looks like it might explode from her face in the same way her ass threatens to explode from her pantsuits.

Great interview, by the way.

I think his address tomorrow should be good.

I think people keep forgetting the difference between a mentor and an acquaintance. Obama calls Wright his MENTOR, not just some random guy that he happens to know. Sure we all happen to know some creeps and bigots, but we don't choose them out to be our mentors and close friends. Nor do we support them financially so that those bigots can spread more hate on a weekly basis.

This is what Obama has done. He's given thousands of dollars to Wright's church, he has been a close friend and a loyal member to Wright and his church for 20 years, he has raised his two daughters in a church run by a pastor that mocks the rape of Natalee Holloway by saying that she got drunk and "gave it up," etc. There are plenty of non-extremist pastors whom Obama could've sought out, but he chose Wright and now he'll not be able to squirm his way out of it by saying that Wright is just like your "crazy uncle" or just another person whom you've come in contact with through life. Obama gave Wright $20K in 2006 -- he is not a stupid guy and he definitely knew of many of the objectionable things his pastor had said by then.

Talking to my mom tonight, she was wondering what the big deal was with Wright's comments:

"They're true" she said.

I guess that's the litmus test: you either think Wright is a crazed racist, or just a justifiably angry pastor.

It is pretty obvious to me that he means both Senator Clinton and John McCain have many sketchy (and a lot of them far more sketchy) people they have been connected to in their long careers in Washington. But because he has only been in Washington for a few years, he hasn't had enough time to put distance between the two people in his life that the scouring through his records, friendships and relationships have shown to be less than desireable to the electorate.

If he had been in Washington for decades, I'm sure he too could have several dozen ministers who have said equally horrid things and at least a few hundred donors who ended up in trouble.

The obvious smack is directed at the idiots who would freak out and think Obama is somehow evil because his Pastor has said two minutes worth of crazy things in his 30 years as a minister, and one of his one million donors who have contributed to his political campaigns is now on trial. Perspective seems to be what he is asking for - it seems rather reasonable to me.

That's his answer???

But then he says:

But keep in mind, on all these issues, there is no allegations that I’ve done anything wrong, just as in the situation with Reverend Wright there is no allegation that I’ve said something that was inappropriate.

So if we weren't actually thinking he had done anything wrong or said something inappropriate, he puts the idea of "allegations" into people's heads?

He's in deep, deep shit.

If memory serves me, Obama keeps throwing out the first stone. His cracks about Hillary being "nice enough" and his crack about her being on the Walmart Board, and his lying attack about NAFTA sounds like he has been around the political block plenty.

Particularly when he keeps crying foul, savages his opponent and plays wounded forgetting he was the one who started all this dirty campaigning.

Obama has been around too long. And this is just one more in his long string of lies he has used to manipulate his followers. I get the impression they are starting to feel very uneasy about their man. Don't blame them one bit. Truth does have a way of rising to the top like cream. And Obama ain't cream.

So get over your faux wounded defense. The more you talk, the more we get on to you. On the other hand, keep talking and keep trying to explain the indefensible because the sooner we will be able to get rid of you and your political charade you have been running.

Greg, I think you misundertand him completely. I suggest you read the response a few more times and update your title.

The way I read his comments he is basically alluding to the idea that "I haven't been around Washington so long that everytime I meet someone I look at them purely in terms of what can they do for me and how much will it cost me."

I also have yet to see anyone say "I'm a regular church goer and I have looked at what Wright said in context and I'm very bothered by it." Most of what people are objecting to is simply a question of how something was said rather than what was said. And how it is said really needs to be judged in terms of the intended audience which was not a bunch of secular white liberals and conservatives.

Obama was baptised in Chicago politics, brought up under the wing of Emil Jones Jr, Harold Washington, and Daley Jr. Activist black churches led by passionate pastors preaching fire & brimstone sermons are part of Chicago's political habitat. Pastor Wright, Farrakhan, the remnant radical lefties of the 60s culture wars -- no big whup -- all these characters have been regular fixtures of the South Side landscape for years, from way before Obama's time, no explaining necessary. Rezko? As far as I can tell from reading a dozen or so articles detailing Obama's relationship with him, that's become a known quantity too - there's just "no there there." My sense is that Obama and his campaign advisors (most of whom are also from Chicago) probably figured he'd already been put under the microscope more than a few times; all the news coverage is easily googled - what more "vetting" could there be? Or put another way, what other vetting is necessary? I think they took it for granted that if it's been good enough for Chicago, it should be enough for the rest of America too, so let's move on.

I think that's what he means about not distancing himself from these figures of Chicago's politics - he's acknowledging that this is a national campaign now - he ain't in Chicago no more. He needed to be better prepared to deal with them given the Washington/national mindset.