Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Thoughts on Pennsylvania, Clinton and Obama from a "Realisticrat"

Ok, so I'm going out on a limb here. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but as I've stated in the past, not by much. I support Clinton because I belong to that little-known political party: Realisticrats. Realisticrats never fall in love with a candidate. We fall in love with winning. We start at the end--the actual election--and work our way backwards from there in choosing the candidate who has the best chance at victory. I don't rally around anyone unless they look, smell and act like a winner. I belong to no "team." A reporter once jabbed basketball legend Michael Jordon about his his ego and style of play with "Hey Michael, there's no "I" in team"....His Airness responded with the brilliant, "that's right, but there is in 'win'." It's all about winning. And while I actually prefer to see Sen. Barack Obama become our 44th president, and think he would be much better for the country at this critical military, economic and social crossroads, I firmly believe Clinton is the more electable candidate against the GOP's presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain and the Ruthless Republican Attack Machine (RRAM).

Obama, in order to achieve the historic presidential greatness that might one day be his destiny, needs to first get past the supreme ugliness that he faces with the RRAM. And I am as confident as a caterpillar at a toe-countin' contest that McCain & Company will eat him alive in the general election. He has unfortunately armed the RRAM with way too much ammunition involving his Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, flag pin, BitterGate and Michelle's "pride" controversies. Throw in the inescapable fact that he's a 46-year-young black man with a Muslim name, a drug past and just three years experience in the Senate and the picture deeply worsens. Now before I continue, don't shoot the messenger. I personally don't care about any of this nonsense, but you can bet your ass the RRAM is salivating as we speak. If you believe otherwise, you are beyond naive. I've taken a lot of heat over the past several months over this position. But I am not in the politically-correct business. Remember, I'm a Realisticrat. My only goal is to win.

That brings us to Clinton, who is way too untrustworthy, untruthful and disingenuous to way too many people, including this writer. But the simple truth is, people expect such duplicity from politicians, and especially from the Clintons. There's nothing new on this front. With the Clintons, it's the same old same old. The skeletons are already out of the closet, and have been under the RRAM microscope since '92. Unlike with Obama, her news is old news. But more important, Hillary has the Ruthless Clinton Attack Machine (RCAM) behind her, consisting of Howard Wolfson, James Carville and many other battle-tested warriors who know how to fight the RRAM and win. I'll put my money on them any day of the week.

Now again, don't shoot the messenger. I didn't make up the rules of engagement. That landscape was cultivated chiefly by Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, disciples of 1980's "Happy Hatchet Man" and original "Darth Vader" Lee Atwater, the incendiary Republican operative and brains behind the '88 Willie Horton ad campaign that sank Michael Dukakis' bid for the presidency. Starting in the 80's, and shifting into full gear against Bill Clinton in the 90's and then into massive overdrive against Al Gore and John Kerry in 2000 and 2004 respectively, the RRAM masterfully perfected the art of dirty politics, and that's the playing field Democrats must navigate through now. While it may be possible many years from now to return to the good old "gentlemanly" days of politics that I keep hearing about but have never personally experienced, right now, a Democrat must fight like a Republican if he or she expects to win. Hillary meets that standard. Obama has proven that he does not.

Now onto Pennsylvania, where, as a Realisticrat, I believe Clinton must achieve a clear, decisive victory in Tuesday's primary or she should quit the race and let the general contest begin. PA is the big prize. The hugely working-class state is representative of middle-America and the traditional Democratic base. Without a resounding victory over Obama, you can stick a fork in her, and rightly so. There'll no be no logical, rational basis for her to continue other than an insatiable hunger for power and attention. At that time, as a Realisticrat, I will call for her withdrawl more loudly than anyone. But if she can pull of a double-digit win (or something very close), it'll make it very hard to convince me or any sane Dem that the race is over. What she'll have is a string of critical big-Blue state wins (OH, TX, PA), impressive momentum, and a bruised and battered opponent who, as the NY Times columnist David Brooks said last week, has fallen to Earth. Indeed, a very compelling narrative for her to offer up to super-delegates, who could very well swing to her corner quick as lightning.

Ronald Reagan rode to victory on the wings of one simple question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago." With a big win in PA, Clinton's question to the Super D's will surely be, "Are you better off with me or Obama against McCain and the Ruthless Republican Attack Machine." This Realisticrat already knows the answer....


Anonymous said...

Andy,your right,but even if hillary not only wins the penn.primary tonight,but wins by double figures,Obama fans will say she needs to get out so their LOSER is crowned victor,most of the great Obama's win's have been in the red states(states that will normally vote republican),except virgina and south carolina where 90-95 percent of the black vote took him to victory.The only big state was his own home state he won.He's unelectable in the general,people here in upstate new york are saying they don't trust Obama and are saying they will cross party lines and vote republican for Maccain,because of who we now have as a governor who should of been vetted for Lt. governor.The dems. having Obama as their candidate don't bring red states into play they put BLUE states into play.

Prius said...

Andy, once again you hit the nail on the proverbial head. I want to go with a proven team, the Clinton's. Bill got us out of a Bush debt in 1992 and it took him 8 years to do that. With the mess we are in now it'll take 16 years to get us out, if even then.

Obama talks good but wait until the GOP get after him. I continue to say that all the media hype about Obama is a right wing trick to get him as the candidate and then the O'Bomb shell will come forth. They have some serious dirt on him and it will come out in September that will sink the hopes of a Democrat taking the White House. This is a set up from the very beginning and the media machine has been the major player. Watch any TV program, listen to ANY radio station, read ANY magazine or newspaper and you will see negative comments or stories on Hillary and positive ones about Obama. It is unreal how they can get away with it but they do and believe me I read a lot and watch as much news as I can (stand).

All you hear is talk of Hillary quitting. They want her to quit so the slime machine can begin and so Dean will get out of a jam he's in with Florida and Michigan. I'm with you Andy, I WILL vote for Obama if he is the candidate, but I will not work or support him, like I have for Hillary. We can not afford 4 more years of McBush and the war machine.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Much of your post is predicated on the tenuous assumption that Clinton has been fully vetted. Trust me, if by some miracle she becomes the nominee, we'll begin hearing a lot more about Bill Clinton's donor list from his library and his foundation. His work on behalf of central asian oligarchs, and even possible dalliances while hanging with bachelor billionaire friend Ron Burkle.

Obama hasn't played the Republican smear game against Hillary the way she has played it against him. But McCain and the Right Wing Attack Machine will drudge up a lot of unsavory characters from the immediate Clinton past as well as Bill's controversial list of pardons (including the two Weathermen).

She has not been fully vetted, and should she win the nomination we should expect it to get ugly.

That said, Obama will still face many obstacles to achieving victory over McCain. I have faith that his insane financial advantage will give him a leg up on defining himself and McCain to the public.

Also, the first commenter forgets that Obama won Wisconsin without having to rely on merely blacks and the youth. He also plays far better in Minnesota and the pacific northwest (not major African american populations) than Hillary. Sure, we may cede NJ and Florida, states that Hillary could crush McCain in. But we'll pick up Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and possibly Virginia and Iowa, states where Hillary wouldn't win.

If we add Richardson to the ticket, then there's a good chance we pick up Colorado and New Mexico as well.

It's going to be a tight race, either way. Should make for good television.

Anonymous said...

The premise of today's column is that Hillary would be stronger against McCain. That's where I disagree. Hillary and McCain both stand for the past, Obama for change.

I get very tired of Democrats cowering the RRAM. McCain is an old goat, past his prime, declining mentally.

Lastly, and repeatedly overlooked: Obama is the Christian candidate. Andy, you talk about being realistic. American want a Christian as President. A great way for the Republican Right to show their power in the party is to abandon McCain, and what better way to do it is under the guise of wanting a Christian in office.

Anonymous said...

Andy, you just said all that is wrong with the Democrat party and why so many people have said they haven't left the party, but rather, the party left them. I am close to being one of them for the pervasive attitude that Realisticrats - who form way too large a part of the Party in numbers, but especially power - that winning is all that matters and the quality and character of our candidates means little.

I am appalled at the refusal of the party to winnow out the corruption that is at its core. You can tell me all day long about how bad the Republicans are, and you can call them all the inappropriate names you like (such as Repugnicans). But the bottom line is, that is not MY house to worry about.

Realisticrats spend far too much time worrying about the other guys house and far too little time worrying about our own.

You repeat without validation Hillary's stump line that all her baggage is out there and it has been vetted. Not true.

For example, what is in those papers at the Library that is being hidden from view? Clearly hidden they are and all that talk about it taking time (8 years????) to go through them before they can be redacted for release is a lie. And people only hide what can hurt them. Rest assured that if there was a treasure trove of goodies in there, they'd have been out a long time ago.

Beyong that, who are the Clintons beholden too? Who have they taken money from? That $100 million paycheck includes a lot of dough that comes from access to foreign sources, some of which are hostile if not inimicable to US interests. And that doesn't even take into account those who funded the cookie jar at the Library.

All of which stays hidden from view and undisclosed.

So all her baggage has NOT been vetted. And since even YOU believe the Clintons are WAY dishonest, you must thus then concede the point that she has NOT been fully vetted. Indeed, the fact that a provably corrupt person has MORE baggage should be more cause for worry than the other guy who is not known as a slimebucket.

As to attack machines, let's be clear about one thing. For all the knocks you have taken against the vaunted RRAM, the Clintons are worse. They have left a trail of broken lives of innocent people - including friends - and a trail of choking legal fees saddling people whose only crime was to serve their administrations.

These are very bad people - bad to their core and the fact that their only redeeming feature is that they can win and return crooks to a position where they can only commit more dirty deeds that we all know they've done before is hardly a reason to vote for them.

Our party has for far too long been about power rather than how it is used and what benefit it is put to. Again, you can rail at the GOP all you like, but where is the effort to clean up our own house???? I haven't seen a single sign of it. Even the GOP throws their dreck out from time to time. See, for example the first Bush who lost his party support when he broke his tax pledge (while we stuck to Clinton when he broke MANY of his promises, such as welfare reform, don't ask don't tell and NAFTA), Tom DeLay, Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich.

Name ONE prominent Dem kicked to the curb? Heck, we have a KKK Grand Wizard and a murderer holding huge amounts of seniority and power in the Senate.

Put forth creeps like the Clintons and you have ZERO credibility to criticize the other side. ZERO.

Obama is not pure by any measure. Yet his impurities are tiny when compared to the Clintons. No one comes to run for President with a pristine record. It's literally impossible to get from point A to point B in such a situation without passing a stop sign or going a bit over the speed limit. A good candidate can handle himself on such matters.

But the Clintons aren't that. Their dirty, slimy people who stain our party and need to be eliminated from the center of influence.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Obama can win and I'm not so sure about Hillary anymore. A year ago I figured every woman who had to put up with male ego's and assorted crap would vote for her and she would win easily...now I find myself fearing McSame who was a joke six months ago. I credit this pathetic state of affairs to weak leadership by Howard Dean, a brilliant campaign by the Obama children's crusade, Hillary's over the top brass knuckle work and the undercurrent of racism that is alive and well in our fair land. And so my hope is that Al Gore will decide to basically sacrifice the rather nice life he has discovered for himself and enter the picture as a candidate with Obama as his VP. Al doesn't owe us this but I hope he will come to see that he is really the only hope for the party and the country. I too want a win more than anything...one more right wing nut supreme court appointment and our descent into mindless selfishness and decomposition will accelerate dramatically.

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sidney Condorcet said...

11:58, wow!! Please keep posting, as maybe people will stop attacking only me for submitting such lengthy posts.

Also, just read this on the Washington Post website...

"The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll charts Clinton's decline from a high point just after her victory in New Hampshire to a new low point this spring. In that time, her favorable rating underwent a 40-point swing among independents. In mid-January, 59 percent of independents said they had a favorable impression of her, compared to 39 percent unfavorable. Last week, it was the reverse: 39 percent favorable and 58 percent unfavorable."

Hillary would not easily beat McCain, as some of these Obama-haters constantly suggest. Her scorched-earth tactics have ruined her credibility with independents, who traditionally have been enthralled by McCain. She'd get destroyed by him among that key group. In fact, if she stood any chance in the general election she would, ironically, require the large turnout of Obama's target demographics, young new voters and near-full turnout of african american voters...

Anonymous said...

Of course Ostroy is right. I can't understand why he early on was for Hillary and now is for Obama albeit, only academically. Obama is not going to be any more ready for the presidency years from now than he is at this moment if he doesn't do a lot of explaining. I won't go through the list -- we should all know it by now. They are serious charges.

As for Hillary's not being fully vetted -- it's all relative. Obama has not been vetted at all. If there's further "dirt"on Hillary it will either be a lie, or, some minor infraction like her once being a Republican.

As for her motives, right after getting her law degree, rather than take a high-paying job she and some of her friends fought to have diabled children adoped instead of stored away in homes. Her list of charitable and loving accomplishments is long.

Hillary is a Christian. Has been a Methodist and an active Methodist all her life.

These arguments against Hillary these days are getting to be so thin in substance that they could only come from the remaining finantical Obama supporters. Even the letters to the editor for the NY Times have switched from Obama support to Hillary.

But it's not to worry. All of you Obama kids will benefit too when Hillary is president. She will not discriminate or favor one age group, race, gender or any other special interest group -- All her work for Americans will be like her healthcare plan which is for ALL.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Andy. If only the superdelegates really look at state by state.

Check out:


There are more of us out there that know politics and reality.

Anonymous said...


You keep saying Hillary has not been vetted yet and then you keep bringing up Bill.

Hillary is running. Unless she is also connected to what you are saying, why should she have to pay for whoever Bill's donors were?

It makes no sense.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who believes that we have been through hell the last 7-8 years, would never vote for McCain.

We need to make sure that the real (Keeting Five) McCain is introduced to voters. We need to see those suck up pictures of Bush and McCain over the last couple of years. And finally voters need to be reminded on how McCain has voted the last few years. This way the real McCain will come into focus. The radical McCain dies several years ago.

Anonymous said...

You dumb raving ranters are overlooking the point Ostroy makes: We have to be realistic.

No matter how much you hate Bill, Hlllary, women, the Democratic Party, America, or anything else; OBAMA CANNOT WIN.





Sidney Condorcet said...


I agree that Hillary should not, in an ideal world, be tainted by any Bill-related scandals, however, in the real world, something Bill has said or done can definitely do damage to her campaign.

Look at what's happening to Obama. It's not as if he's friends with Ayers, they are "friendly", but Obama is being hurt by what Ayers once did. Rev. Wright's few extreme, heinous words (and not his decades of good works on behalf of both whites and blacks, and his having volunteered for the Marines, etc...) have hurt Obama as well.

If it comes to light that Bill did some advocating on behalf of some fairly heinous people, Hillary will be tainted by it. That's the media game these days, sadly.

Anonymous said...

Hillary has done a fantastic job of maintaining her campaign and her composure during what I view as relentless attack by the MSN. MSNBC must be offering training for their journalists in Hillary bashing. HRC has maintained and moved forward.

Compare Obamas reaction to semi straightforward questioning by the much maligned ABC Penn debate and we can see that he drooped like a wilted flower. His supporters have spent the last week bad mouthing ABC.

The ABC debate emphasized the differences in strength, determination, ability to move forward under intense pressure of the two candidates. Hillary won overwhelmingly.

I want Hillary for the Democratic Candidate and POTUS.

Anonymous said...

Bill's behavior was between consenting adults and was not a threat to anyone but Hillary and their marriage. It was between them and was a private matter and should not have been anybody else's business.

Wright's remarks affect the country and are against a whole race of people. Hardly a private matter. Ayers threw bombs and as late as 9/11 said he was not sorry and should have thrown more bombs.

There is hardly any comparison between Hillary's relationship to her husband and the two friends of OBama and their continuing potential danger to others since they have not repented.

The only similarity is both Hillary and Obama stuck by the offenders.

Sidney apparently hasn't read the manifesto of the Black Linberation movement that Wright preaches.

Wright's good work was among the blacks in his church and community. He did not help needy white people.

I might now point out that Oprah's school for needy girls was built in Africa, not America. She was once a member of Wright's church.

I would point out that "friends of Obama" have sent millions to Kenya.

Where's the uniting motive in those acts?

Sidney Condorcet said...

If Clinton doesn't win by at least five, she's got to drop out tonight.

Since it appears she will win by double digits, then the battle moves to Indiana on May 6th. Obama will beat her by around 20 points in North Carolina, so it's all about Indiana. If she loses there, then she has to withdraw. Clinton's a smart candidate, she doesn't want to destroy her party. So for you Clintonistas who think she'll take this to the convention for a floor fight, get real. Clinton has to face members of her party on a daily basis in the Senate, and she does not want those people giving her the cold shoulder for having destroyed our prospects of beating McCain.

At the end of the day, Clinton will be a loyal soldier and campaign in select states on behalf of Obama's campaign. This will all be over by May 7th....

A Gies said...

I am consistently shocked by the "electibility" argument from the Clinton wing, because all the evidence we have shows but exactly the opposite.

There has been a consistent trend in this primary season--that Clinton starts with 50-60% in any given state, and the better known Obama becomes, the more he eats into her support. That is, given that Clinton had national name recognition from the start, and Obama was a no name as early as a year ago, the more voters are exposed to Clinton, the less support she has: for instance, she had a 59% favorability rating among independents, 39 % unfavorable in mid-January; these numbers are now exactly reversed. See here:

Conversely, the more voters are exposed to Obama, the more his poll numbers go up (scroll to the bottom, and then scroll up to see Obama's poll ratings from late 2007 to now).
See here

Finally, Obama leads in the national polls as well now but a 10 point margin, see here at Real Clear Politics.
See here.

There is a trend in all of these numbers: being a divisive figure, Clinton's support has maxed out or leveled off, and among some groups, such as independents, is even in decline. For Obama, by contrast, aside from slight dips following the Wright affair--but not, surprisingly, the supposedly 'elitist' remarks--the more national exposure he receives, the more his numbers go up.

There is simply is, on the evidence, no argument for Clinton's so-called superior 'electibility'. The only thing that sustains that impression is her capacity for smear, which hasn't helped her, as the polls show.

Finally--for god sake--when did the Democratic party stubble upon the sick, Bush -like idea that it doesn't matter who wins, so long as its our own party member? Having the word "Democrat" next to your name does not mean you would be much different--on foreign policy especially, Clinton has outdone even McCain in right-wing talking points about whom she would nuke, which sounds to me more like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh than any one else.

Blue said...

Methinks you are a quasi-realisticrat - as I believe we lost when we opted to go for an historical election rather than select the best candidate.

I like neither but prefer Clinton to Obama and believe neither can win - yes, it's pathetic given the Repugnican alternative but not surprising considering our electorate.

Anonymous said...


Sounds more like the death throes of the Johnson, Humphrey and Stevenson campaigns in 1960 - "There's no way an inexperienced ROMAN CATHOLIC can win the Presidency. You need to trust us. We're vetted. We know how Washington works. This Kennedy kid doesn't."

If Hillary's machine is so formidable, why is she losing the delegate and popular vote count to a virtual unknown? If her leadership skills clearly show her to be stronger than Obama, why has her campaign been so dismal (she had EVERY institutional advantage going into this race)?

I'm happy to vote for a woman of strength. I worked for Ann Richards. Hillary Clinton is no Ann Richards.

Obama will win the nomination. If Hillary Clinton wants to destroy her reputation and legacy within the Democratic Party she can do so by sitting on the sidelines afterward. Those of us who are lifelong true believers (read: not those who are simply interested in winning for the sake of winning - also known as making deals with the devil) will not forget.

Last comment: my nearly 70-year old father and mother have never voted Democratic in their lives. They've known the Bush family since the 50s (my grandfather at one point worked for GHWB's campaign against Lloyd Bentsen). They voted for Obama in the primacaucus here in Texas and will do so in the general election. If it comes down to Clinton and McCain - they will vote for McCain.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Reason for Democrats to remain positive:

Ross Douthat of the Atlantic:

The Democratic primary campaign - divisive, bitter, and seemingly endless - has made many Republicans optimistic about their party's prospects for retaining the White House this November. But the numbers still seem to tell a different story -- and not just secondary indicators like the enormous gap between McCain's fundraising and the dollars his Democratic rivals are raking in, or the underlying economic realities that will make this a tough year for the GOP no matter what. The polls themselves aren't running McCain's way, or at least not to the extent that would justify the current wave of conservative optimism about November.
Now of course no poll taken in April can tell us all that much about a vote that's held in November: Elections that look close can turn into routs and vice versa, and huge polling margins can vanish in the blink of an eye. (Ask Michael Dukakis how well his seventeen-point margin from early-summer 1988 held up in the end.) But by all rights, this ought to be a peak time for McCain's numbers - not the peak, necessarily, but certainly a high point. His right-wing critics are making nice with him, his favorable ratings are sky-high, and his opponents are too busy driving each other's negative ratings upward to spend any time (or money, more importantly) putting a dent in his halo. Moreoever, the Democrats' intra-party tensions are bound to diminish once the party picks a nominee: At least some of the Hillary supporters who tell pollsters that they'd vote for McCain over Obama may actually follow through on that pledge, but a lot of today's McCainocrats will come home to the Democratic fold when all is said and done.
Yet even with all this going for him, McCain's poll numbers are bumping up against the same 45 percent ceiling that they've been hitting since December. If the election were held today - a pretty good day for McCain, all things considered - he'd probably lose to Obama, and might lose to Clinton as well. That doesn't mean he will lose, by any stretch, but it certainly doesn't bode well for November."

Anonymous said...

Hillary is behind Obama numerically because nobody knew anything about him except that he spouted beautiful ideas of hope and unity, he was smart, charming and promising. He swept past her easily. Then all the ugly things that we found out about him startled and disappointed many Americans and they took another look at him. Finally, what did it for me was his association for twenty years with a pastor, a congregation and a church that really doesn't like America, white people and doesn't represent the teachings of Christianity.

That is one reason he cannot win. Another is women, "bitter" over the treatment Hillary has received by the media who are totally behind her and many are so bitter they will vote for McCain if she's not our candidate.

Even tonight on MBNBC Rachel Maddow said Hillary had to win PA because it was "her kind of state" because of the blue collar workers. It was not surpring at all that she'd win PA said Ms. Maddow. However, when Obama won big in South Carolin and is expected to win big in NC. no one points out they're "his kind of state" because of the black population.

Women have dumped Oprah and they will dump the Democratic Party. You've all heard aobut "a woman scorned ... haven't you?

Anonymous said...


Respectfully submitted, what a crock.

Is Hillary Clinton so weak that an unknown with only beautiful oratorical skills can "easily" sweep by her? In claiming that this is the case are you not making an elitist argument that those who support Obama are foolish or have been somehow duped?

We who support Obama do so because his life, his experience and his message resonate and we think his vision is the best course for the Democratic Party and America, not because we do not like women. This is evidenced by the fact that Obama supporters say they are more likely to support Clinton in the general election than Clinton supporters are to support Obama. What does this say about your candidate and her supporters?

The claim all the big Dems have abandoned Hillary is specious. In Pennsylvania, the Governor, the mayors of Philadephia, Pittsburgh and 98 other mayors as well as most of the elected Democrats in the state endorsed her nomination. She had all the institutional support necessary to blow it out with a 20 point victory. Returns now indicate she'll be fortunate to win by 8.

Frankly, ladies, I'm sick to death about the incredibly IGNORANT claims about Reverend Wright and Trinity. Those who cling to this nonsense know literally nothing about the man or the church and apparently don't really care to find out. Reverend Wright served as a United States Marine, ministered to an ill Lyndon Johnson, he was invited to the White House when Bill Clinton needed support of religious leaders during the Lewinsky scandal, he was praised by Ronald Reagan for being part of a delegation that freed a captured Navy flier and on and on.

Yeah, he hates America and white people...

The Methodist minister of the Clinton's church in Washington has come out and defended Reverend Wright. So has McCain's supposed minister in Phoenix and so has Mike Huckabee. Now, go pick up your Bible, read the Book of Jeremiah and call the prophet a hater of the Jewish people and Israel. Curiously you will find much the same language as spoken by Reverend Wright and much the same meaning.

Congrats on your victory in Pennsylvania. See you in North Carolina and Indiana.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for setting the record straight on Reverend Wright..

I'm tired of these smears of a good man...

All of us have had bad moments that, if captured on YouTube, should not be made to define our entire lives.

Jeremiah has done such good and noble deeds for this country. All those chicken-hawks that got us into this mess in Iraq avoided serving in Vietnam. Wright VOLUNTEERED. He's served this country honorably and he's a decent man who has dared to criticize his nation. Sure, i don't agree with the way he does it. But it's his right.

Our country ain't perfect, but if we don't criticize its bad conduct and work to correct it, then we will never ever be perfect, we'll never truly be that City on the Hill that we aim to be.

Reverend Wright is a good man, and Senator Obama is a GREAT man. Senator Clinton is a fine Senator, but that's all she's going to be. She cannot mathematically win this race. The longer she stays in, the nastier she slimes Obama, the more likely the Democrats will miss this great opportunity and McCain will be President.

On to Indiana and North Carolina, where Senator Obama should finish Sen. Clinton off.


Anonymous said...

the only candidate who hasnt been vetted, and has been getting a free ride from the press is mcfeeble.

obama cant win the general??? only if americans still care about bs issues over their own best interests....and if that is so, mcangry wins, no matter who his opponent is.

hillary's negatives remain high...not sure why ostroy and the clintonistas continue to ignore that.

ya, she won the primary tonite...but she did it by using last minute rovian tactics...and that makes me depressed...it does mean that at least in pa, fear trumps reality.

hillary is not bill....bill will not be president again...we are not going back to the 90s

oh, and the idea that the candidate must be picked that has the best chance to win, didnt do any of us a lotta good in 04 now...did it

or did i just dream that kerry lost

Anonymous said...

All of you who are sick and tired of Wright being "dissed", get him to come out and deny that he thinks the US government deliberably infected blacks with AIDS; that he truly loves America and thinks it is the best country in the world for protecting ciiizen's rights; that he too is a rich man and so are most of his congregation and now that a black man is supported by so many whites and all of the black population that there is no longer a reason to be bitter over slavery, which no living person had anything to do with.

Let him tell us that and then maybe we can believe that he's not teaching hatred of whites and loyalty to Africa.

Get the other friend Bill Ayers to apologize for bombing everything he could get to.

By the way I'm a man and not one of those silly women you don't like.

Anonymous said...

Unbelievable. Hillary wins and wins big and everybody on TV is bashing her. MSNBC leading the pack and the NY TIMES, of all publications. There is just no explanation for that.

It makes me more determined to continue to support Hillary and hope she can save the disintegration of the Democratic Party that is showing a very ugly side toward women, and the middle class.

Bush NEVER got this kind of bashing from the Democratic media and press. What is going on? Is it the rich against the poor????

There will be huge number leaving the Pary tobecome Independents if something doesn't change. This is outrageous.

Anonymous said...

anonymous "man who is not one of those silly women you don't like".

Let me put this simply and plainly. I like women. I happen to be happily married to one. I used to work for a woman politician (Ann Richards). If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for her.

I just don't think she is the better candidate.

Barack Obama has repudiated the specific comments by Jeremiah Wright you cite. Using your logic/judgment Hillary Clinton should not only have to apologize for decades of unsavory affiliations but have each and every one of those persons stand up and take a public loyalty oath and grovel at your feet to somehow cleanse Hillary.

It's a standard no person could survive and really amounts to a strawman argument.

Pretend Reverend Wright never existed. Would you vote for Barack Obama?

Anonymous said...

There would have been a "redo" in Florida but Obama wouldn't agree to it. He won't debate in Indiana. He got his lead and the delegates before we knew what we know now nad he's afraid to risk losing it and is laying low. He can't win in the general because of his negatives.

Anonymous said...

10:22 I prefer Obama and Wright quote the NEW TESTMANET which is what Christianity is based on. "Forgive seventy-times seven" God is LOVE"; Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's *the government) and unto God that whis is His."; THere is nothing but love and forgiveness spoken by Jesus; and he also allowed women into his inncer circle. We do not rely on the Old Testament solely for our guidance.

Anonymous said...

Regarding negatives, Hillary has higher negatives than Barack so your argument blows up right there.

If the New Testament is the only thing Christianity is based on, why does a Christian's Bible still include the Old Testament and why is it still a regular part of Sunday sermons?

Jesus did not simply speak of love and forgiveness. He wasn't Fred Rogers.

O, Jerusalem, Jerusalem thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew 23:37-39)

Anonymous said...

9:43 Right. Same chapter:

Matt. 23:19-22 "Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dewelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereo,

Carrying the "render unto Caesar ... render unto God" further. It's not wise to worship the material aspects of religion instead of the spiritual of God. It makes people hypocrits.
Jesus knew what the consequences of their materialistic worship would lead to, but he did not damn them or anyone else. Nor did he cause any punishing misery. He merely warned. Jesus was totally loving.

The old testament is background for the New Testament. If the entire world followed only the words and ideas of Jesus we would now be living in peace and love. We would all be Christians.

Wright was way into secular events, the government; and,he damned a country of people.

Anonymous said...

5:16 I'm not the one you call a stupid man, but I would like clarificaiton.

You suggest there is proof in that there were Tuskegee experiments which I guess you say were experiments on blacks by infecting them with aids. I will look it up. In the meantime if such evidence is so readily available why didb;t Wright, Obama and any of the other intelligent blacks expose the horror and demand something be done about it? Screaming from a pulpit just doesn't get much action. Why didn't Oprag mention it to her huge audience. She was quick to expose plagerism and lies by a writer. She fought and one a beef case. Any mention inling that such horror might be going on would have brought an outcry from almost every American. You know that's true.

And why didn't Obama denouce Ayers in the debate??

Anonymous said...

5:59, what is your point? That religious leaders should not engage their flock in discussion of secular or government activity?

I'm glad that you think if the whole world followed only the words and ideas of Jesus we would now be living in peace and love. It's a really neat concept.

I happen to live in the real world. So did the prophet Jeremiah, so did Jesus and so does Jeremiah Wright.

Again, the pastor of Hillary's church in Washington, McCain's pastor in Phoenix and Mike Huckabee - all of whom, with due respect, understand this issue a whole lot better than you - have all defended Reverend Wright.

Look up the word "jeremiad" and the history of preaching damnation.

Anonymous said...

Jeremaih is old testatment teaching. I paraphrase: Jesus said give no thought to what you'll eat, wear or whatever - the "his eye is on the sparrow" type teachings of Jesus when he said "God is Love"; He loves each of us and he will provide for us. Jesus lived in the real world and had complete dominion. He allowed the crucifixtion to teach us a lesson And his order for us to feed the poor, and help those in need would suggest that he didn't think their trouble were a result of a vengeful, demanding God or Jesus would never have told us to intefere with God's plan.

When God is blamed for something less loving that I, myself, would have done in the same siutaiton, I know it is not from the God Jesus revealed.

Anonymous said...

"Hillary is running. Unless she is also connected to what you are saying, why should she have to pay for whoever Bill's donors were?"

Right. So why is Obama asked to answer for Reverend Wright? Obama doesn't live or sleep with Wright, but Hillary does live and sleep with Bill. And guess who the Clintons invited to the White House for "spiritual guidance" while the whole Lewinsky scandal and impeachment unfolded: Reverend Wright.

And Ayers/Weather Underground? Obama occasionally worked with the guy on a board of a non-profit organization 30 years after his Weather Underground days. Clinton commuted the convictions of Weather Underground members' crimes. So who's dirtier on this one?

See you in Indiana and NC.

Anonymous said...

Yet, again, I don't think the Old Testament is removed from your Bible and is likely utilized by the preachers at your congregation.

And it is precicely because Jesus loved and wanted the best for us that he was willing to "damn" or point out the injustice or sin in us all.

I don't think Reverend Wright "blamed" God, I think he exhorted God to damn the US for its failings - not unlike hundreds of preachers have done for hundreds of years in the United States or the prophets of old.

But this is what happens when certain candidates are losing, they grasp at any available straw.

Anonymous said...


to the anon who doesnt know what the tuskegee experiments were...they had nothing to do with aids, they were about not treating black men who were infected with syphalis, to see how the disease progressed...they never told the patients that they were not being treated, and they kept the study a secret...it was conducted from 39 to 72 and did not come out to the public, until i believe, the early 90s

now think about the history of this immoral, unethical and illegal study and you tell me, when a black man sees the incidence of aids being high in the black community, how he could quite possibly believe that this is being done purposefully.

those who choose to remain ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it.

as for why obama didnt denounce ayres, heck if i know...most likely because ayres has nothing to do with the current campaign...you see, snufflelufegas had his facts wrong...ayres and obama were on the same board in chicago...ayres gave him 250 dollars for his state leg campaign...he has nothing to do with his current campaign...and this is 2008, what the heck are we doing refighting the radicalism of the 60s....fine...obama should come out and denounce the weather underground, the yippies, abbie hoffman and all of the rest of the dead radicals.

would that asuage your fears that the second he becomes prez, he will issue a signing statement making it illegal to be white in america?

the entire first half of that debate was absurd...it denied all of obama's works and deeds through his community activism and political life

the fact that you buy into it...the fact that any american buys into it and experiences any fear as to what an obama presidency would be....makes me sad

Anonymous said...

Gently pointing out the faults of others is not damning them which uusually means damned to hell. We all heard Wright say "God damn America"; he was not damning God, obvkously. He was just being, unlike the "pointomg-out- instructions of Jesus," being unforgiving, unloving and showing a lack of understanding of the teachings of Jesus. He was expressing hate, and not turning the other cheek.

Of course preachers have done that for ages and that's why there's been so many wars Even Crusades in the name of God and religion. I repeat, if relgions taught and all followed the words and teachings of Jesus we would have peace, happiness, and abounding goodness for all.

Anonymous said...

So sleeping with someone (husband in Hillary's case) means you agree with each other's political views and likes and dislikes. But, attending a church for twenty years and listening to your spiritual advisor and preacher doesn't necessarily mean you believe him, or in Obama's case, even knew what he was saying.

Anonymous said...

baaci40 since the the syphilis case is so well documented I would appreciate your directing me to the AIDS claim. Surely that is also available to the public. If not, ot if so, I still wonder why powerful blacks and their many powerful white friends in power didn't do something about it -- at least expose it. Again, screaming from the pulpit just doesn't work.

As for your other comments, what could be better than AL Sharpton as Sec. of State. No finer diplomat on earth than Sharpton. It's been said he's advising Obama.

Anonymous said...

10:36, I appreciate your apparent loving and kind nature. I wish and hope there will be more folks like you participating in politics and speaking out.

But it's quite clear your understanding of Jesus is quite different than that taught at most seminaries. Yes, Jesus taught love and peace and living according to God's law. But he was also unequivocal in his stance that those who do not follow God's law will not receive his salvation (aka damnation).

Wright's expression of hate for for the sin, not the sinner, and if you knew ANYTHING about the man other than a sound bite I think you'd come to understand how truly sad it is that he's being so maligned and marginalized for political gain.

Anonymous said...

Mine has been a long search and I admit of course I don't have all the answers. I do know I was scared to death and damaged by the teaching about the hateful, vengeful God of the Southern Baptists when I was a child. I therefore think that the seminaries don't have it right. I started really studying and trying to understand the message Jesus was bringing and was so relieved to hear his main claim That God is love. I knew what love was because from an early age I always had a beloved dog to cuddle when I was scared. To this day in advanced maturity I know I know even further the depth of my love now for friends and family and beloved dogs and cat member ofmy family and I would do nothing to harm them no matter how they disobeyd me or misbehaved. I simply believe that's what Jesus taught. God would not harm his creation and his beloved. If I'm wrong, at least I'm not now scared to death of God and think he kills innocent people for the sins of others, for example.

Back to the original point, I uess. I don't go to churches that teach hate or the vengence of God. I heard one sermon when the preacher said shepherds in the time of Jesus broke the legs of sheep to keep them inthe fold and Jesus "broke" our legs - sent trouble - to keep us near him. I left the church never to attend again. That's why I can't the understand Obama and Wright situation. Jesus did not preach or condone hatred -- ever.

Anonymous said...

Again, it's not hatred of the sinner but of the sin. It's an important and necessary distinction.

I'm sorry that metaphors do not work well for you but they are a very effective instructional tool - as is reminding us all that as the world's only remaining superpower and greatest democracy in the world that we must be ever vigilant that we are doing the right thing, not only for ourselves but for the world community. Also we must recognize that there are those who do not agree with us and we have to win that ideological war - a war that is best won with good deeds, not bullets and bombs.

THAT was the message Reverend Wright was discussing. We had swayed from the path of the righteous. Would I have used the same words? Probably not. But like Mike Huckabee and a host of other pastors who have tried to explain the situation, I understand.

Anonymous said...

Hating the sin and not the sinner is a distinction without a difference in human practice.

I understand and appreciate metaphors. That's hardly the point which you have missed.

No one I've heard has accused Wright of being wrong about his evaluation of some of the actions of our government. Even the founders said we will contintue to form a more perfect union. And, I will point out that had our government or any other government in the world followed the teachings of Jesus there would be no conflict. I won't expand on that but it is true.

The vigilence we need to do the right thing is to have the right formula, creed, or plan. The only plan that will ever work is to follow the instructions of Jesus which include the ten commandments. How about "Thou shalt not kill?"

How about trusting in the Lord and how about the power of human love and God's love?

How about being without sin before throwing stones.

How about doing unto others?

It goes on and on. But you have to have a very deep appreciation of Jesus and God and trust what we are taught by Jesus

Don't you believe in prayer working by the way.

Back to Wright -- he was exhibiting hate and was teaching others to hate. He was condemning a country based on ideals that it had not been able to demonstrate fully as yet. You don't condemn the "sinner", as your first remark suggests, but work to heal the sinner's outlook.

A host of other preachers also teach hate and don't follow the teachings of Jesus. Why is there no integration in white or black churches for starters?

Anonymous said...


There is only a distinction without a difference if you do not follow the teachings of Jesus. His exortation to us was to hate the sin and not the sinner. That we may not choose to follow his teaching is our failing but does not render the distinction moot.

No offense, but I'm done with this conversation. It's going nowhere.

You believe Reverend Wright preaches hatred and I am not going to change your mind. I can only hope you will follow your own suggestions of doing unto others and being sinless before casting the first stone...

Anonymous said...

I am so appreciative of your loving wish for me and I'll return your kindness and pray that you too will follow the suggestions of doing unto others and being sinessl before casting the first stone. There will then be at least two of us and maybe we could persuade Dr. Wright to join our, what could be called , movement.

I end our exchange in hope and in joy.

Anonymous said...

I'd like to respectfully disagree.

This blog expresses a self-fulfilling and self-defeating. "BO will lose to Rovian-JM because he'll lose to Rovain-HC." If BO can defeat Rovian HC, why can't he defeat Rovian JM? Support him, he wins, and therefore he can win again.

My problem is in the 2nd paragraph, which confidently proclaims that HC has a better chance against JM than BO does. I don't know much about caterpillars but I think this "only she can win" argument is very weak. Every 4 years people try to call the election before the campaigning begins. Yes BO has RRAM-attack points, but hers are not irrelevant because they're old. Many of his will also be old news by the election with this hyperactive news cycle (whether 6 months old or 6 years, that matters less and less).
I think BO is very electable in a post-Bush recession-year election with shifting micro-demographics, with Latinos pissed at the Republicans over the border issue and many others pissed over the war (on which BO is certainly a more fearsome debate opponent than HC for McCain).
Six months ago the right-wingers said "please choose HC 'cause we'll kill her" and now the same people are trying to convince us the same of BO?
To say "we can't go with BO because he's not Rovian enough" is another poor argument. A) that's a good thing, and B) there are others on the left who will be Rovian enough on his behalf. Many of the same people who would run the RCAM can also run an RDAM (Rabid Democratic Attack Campaign). BO is not a wimp just because she's a bitch (not my judgement, but implied in the blog).

Wouldn't a real Realisticrat be worried about what it will do, long-term, to the Democratic party if Hillary takes the nomination?