It's hard to overstate how depressing it has been watching the reemergence yesterday of Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club.

It has been depressing to see the Obama campaign go through more "Wrightgate" in the wake of "Bittergate", and the loss of Pennsylvania. Obviously, this is the last thing in the world they needed.

It has been enraging to watch the news media obsess so deeply over the words of a man who is not even running for office, and then associate those words and positions with Sen. Obama—a man who has never uttered publicly any of those words or ideas, nor taken publicly any of those positions. It has been even more infuriating to hear a blowhard like Chris Matthews ask aloud "why won't the reverend just go away", then devote the entire hour of Hardball to picking over his every word. This, naturally, has been the reflex position of the entire political elite the last 24 hours.

It must be downright surreal for the Obama campaign to watch someone utterly out of their control pop off to the news media whatever he feels like saying, whenever he gets the urge, and then have the same media gallop over to Barack and demand an explanation.

More than anything, though, to have watched Barack Obama go to great pains several weeks ago to defend the character of the man he once called pastor, only to have Jeremiah Wright stab him in the back today with the following comments, was the most galling moment of all.

When Wright was asked today about his original remark that 9/11 was "America's chickens coming home to roost", rather than offer the sound foreign policy theory of blowback to explain, he used the Bible: "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles."

On his feelings toward Farrakhan: "He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. I said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks it's like E.F. Hutton speaks."

Not to stop there, he dragged all African-Americans down that road with him. "All black America listens." Really? So now Jeremiah Wright speaks for all black America?

On his theory that the U.S. Government gave AIDS to black people: "Have you read Horowitz's book 'Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola'? Whoever wrote that question, have you read 'Medical Apartheid'? You've read it?" No, we haven't.

On the sincerity of Barack Obama's disowning of Wright's controversial remarks: "He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself, because he's a politician..."

On his personal loyalty to Barack Obama: "If you get elected, November the 5th I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people."

I don't agree with the Washington Post's Dana Milbank, or the National Review, that this event may have doomed Obama's candidacy. I do believe, however, that it may have doomed his chances to win the Indiana primary—one that until today was essentially a dead heat. It also threatens to seriously tighten his popular vote margin in North Carolina.

I confess I don't know exactly where I stand on the near-unanimous media opinion that Obama's only escape from the newest controversy is to completely disavow Wright, once and for all.

I think there is a good point to be made that Wright's narcissistic rant today was a public betrayal of Obama, thereby providing a fair pretext for a disavowal. I believe there is an even stronger argument that since Wright has insinuated Obama is faking his distance from the controversial statements, this requires the senator to directly refute Wright, publicly and immediately. Obama certainly can't have anyone close to him—especially his former pastor—continue to give interviews telling everyone not to really believe Obama means what he says.

On the other hand, I get pretty nauseous when the media starts dictating to public figures whom they are and aren't allowed to associate with. Let's call it what it is: blackmail. The MSM is saying to Obama, "you can make this easier on yourself if you play by our rules, and cut Wright loose. Otherwise, we will hound you day in and day out with this until you drop out of the race." Not included in the threat is the obvious fact, of course, that nothing Obama says or does will ever shut the media up about Rev. Wright anyway. So, what's the point?

Also, wouldn't it look deeply political for Obama to kick Wright to the curb at the very moment the minister is causing him the most damage? And didn't Obama himself say "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother"? You can just see the tabloid headline: "Obama Disses Wright; Granny Takes The Hint, Packs Her Bags".

I don't really know what Obama should do, though the thought of Barack having to cough up yet another mesmerizing "race" speech to get himself out of yet another jam certainly isn't appealing. I do however, have a question for Rev. Wright.

You're obviously an intelligent man, Reverend, who I surprisingly find a lot in common with ideologically, although I believe your leftist politics are of a more conspiratorial strain than my own. It is also obvious that you care passionately and profoundly about the African-American community you have dedicated your life to serving. With these two truths in mind, the obvious question surfaces:

Why are you knee-capping the first viable African-American presidential candidate in our nation's history?

Posted at April 29, 2008 12:08 PM in response to Crabs in the Barrel

I'm not so sold on this "out with the old, in with the new" attack that Rep. Andrews may push in his primary battle against Lautenberg. For one thing, I truly respect Frank's 26 years of public service in the U.S. Senate (not to be confused with the 35 years of experience Hillary Clinton began accumulating her second year of law school).

For another, I remember how the shit went down in September, 2002—two short months before the crucial 2002 congressional midterm elections. At that time, New Jersey, and the Democrats of the U.S. Senate, were saddled with then-Senator Bob Torricelli as their candidate, a man so mired in corruption he made Jack Abramoff look like Coke Stevenson.

Due to the fact that Torricelli was the incumbent senator and a statewide cash machine—despite week after withering week of negative press, endlessly leaking scandal details, and debate after debate featuring Torricelli being raked over the coals on ethics by his Republican opponent Doug Forrester—the party was stuck with him. In a year where the Democrats held the U.S. Senate by one vote (hmm...), Bob Torricelli was the definitive albatross.

When Torricelli's poll numbers cratered in the wake of "severe admonishment" by the Senate Ethics Committee (in addition to the criminal indictment of several of his closest campaign aides), New Jersey's Democratic political establishment went into overdrive to locate a replacement candidate against Republican Doug Forrester.

It just so happened that Frank Lautenberg had retired from the Senate just one year before, and had already expressed the sentiment that retirement "was the worst mistake I ever made". Faced with taking to the voters either the New Jersey equivalent of Edwin Edwards, or a beloved former senator with a sterling reputation for integrity (who just happened to be a multi-millionaire with oodles to spend on his own race), the party bigwigs took the "high road" and went with Lautenberg, stripping Torricelli of his nomination.

The rest is history. Frank went on to cruise to victory over Forrester in a 54-44% rout on Election Day. The rest of the Senate Democrats fared quite differently that day, losing 3 incumbent seats and with them, their Senate majority.

Much of that loss can be attributed to many of those Democratic senators cowardly voting a month prior in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, in the hope that casting their lot with Bush would end the national security debate that had roiled the country since 9/11. Rather than ending it, of course, it only made the Dems look even more spineless than they already did, crushing the morale of the antiwar base of the party, and validating the GOP's false choices on national security.

While Lautenberg was not yet in the Senate for the war resolution, he has been a vocal critic of the Iraq war since its inception. A veteran of WWII, he famously defended attacks on John Kerry's patriotism in 2004 by labeling Dick Cheney as "lead chickenhawk", and rightly defined "chicken hawk" as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."

He has the 6th most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, according to the National Journal. That's ahead of liberal stalwarts like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and another aging lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.

Since the Republican opposition in Jersey has yet to unify around a particular nominee, and none of the potentials are all that strong, the real fight for Lautenberg's Senate seat will likely be in the Democratic primary battle between himself and Andrews.

I've got enough reasons to like 'ole Frank. I like that he jumped in and saved a Democratic Senate seat when it sure looked lost to the GOP. I like that in the midst of attacks on his age during that race, he jumped up on a stage and danced a jig on live television, just to prove his vitality. I like him for being a broadly progressive guy, even though he's filthy rich.

But if I needed a more substantive reason to support Frank Lautenberg over his new, fresh-faced Democratic opponent, Rob Andrews, here's all the reason I need:

On October 10, 2002, Rob Andrews was among the 81 House Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

Done. Over. Next. Go Frank!

Posted at April 13, 2008 2:55 PM in response to New Jersey Senate Primary Could Be A Real Race

No one's "afraid". We just want a Democrat.

Posted at April 9, 2008 12:46 AM in response to New Jersey Dem Establishment Struggles To Squash Upstart Challenge To Lautenberg

socraticgadfly:

I'm not from Texas, but I take my knowledge of Coke Stevenson from Robert Caro's LBJ bio, Means Of Ascent. Amazing book: highly recommended.

Posted at April 9, 2008 12:44 AM in response to New Jersey Dem Establishment Struggles To Squash Upstart Challenge To Lautenberg

Last week, Rep. Robert Andrews of New Jersey entered the Democratic primary against 84 year-old NJ Sen. Frank Lautenberg for the latter's U.S. Senate seat. According to the Times, it's because Frank's too damn old:

"Opposition to Mr. Lautenberg stems not from any ideological differences but rather his advanced age.

In a statement, Mr. Andrews said: '2008 is a year of great change in American politics. Millions of new voters have chosen to enter the political process as a means to make our country better. As New Jersey elects a United States senator this year, people from all over the state have expressed the desire to have real choices based on a positive, substantive campaign.'"

I'm not so sold on this "out with the old, in with the new" attack that Rep. Andrews may push in his primary battle against Lautenberg. For one thing, I truly respect Frank's 26 years of public service in the U.S. Senate (not to be confused with the 35 years of experience Hillary Clinton began accumulating her second year of law school).

For another, I remember how the shit went down in September, 2002—two short months before the crucial 2002 congressional midterm elections. At that time, New Jersey, and the Democrats of the U.S. Senate, were saddled with then-Senator Bob Torricelli as their candidate, a man so mired in corruption he made Jack Abramoff look like Coke Stevenson.

Due to the fact that Torricelli was the incumbent senator and a statewide cash machine—despite week after withering week of negative press, endlessly leaking scandal details, and debate after debate featuring Torricelli being raked over the coals on ethics by his Republican opponent Doug Forrester—the party was stuck with him. In a year where the Democrats held the U.S. Senate by one vote (hmm...), Bob Torricelli was the definitive albatross.

When Torricelli's poll numbers cratered in the wake of "severe admonishment" by the Senate Ethics Committee (in addition to the criminal indictment of several of his closest campaign aides), New Jersey's Democratic political establishment went into overdrive to locate a replacement candidate against Republican Doug Forrester.

It just so happened that Frank Lautenberg had retired from the Senate just one year before, and had already expressed the sentiment that retirement "was the worst mistake I ever made". Faced with taking to the voters either the New Jersey equivalent of Edwin Edwards, or a beloved former senator with a sterling reputation for integrity (who just happened to be a multi-millionaire with oodles to spend on his own race), the party bigwigs took the "high road" and went with Lautenberg, stripping Torricelli of his nomination.

The rest is history. Frank went on to cruise to victory over Forrester in a 54-44% rout on Election Day. The rest of the Senate Democrats fared quite differently that day, losing 3 incumbent seats and with them, their Senate majority.

Much of that loss can be attributed to many of those Democratic senators cowardly voting a month prior in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, in the hope that casting their lot with Bush would end the national security debate that had roiled the country since 9/11. Rather than ending it, of course, it only made the Dems look even more spineless than they already did, crushing the morale of the antiwar base of the party, and validating the GOP's false choices on national security.

While Lautenberg was not yet in the Senate for the war resolution, he has been a vocal critic of the Iraq war since its inception. A veteran of WWII, he famously defended attacks on John Kerry's patriotism in 2004 by labeling Dick Cheney as "lead chickenhawk", and rightly defined "chicken hawk" as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."

He has the 6th most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, according to the National Journal. That's ahead of liberal stalwarts like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and another aging lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.

Since the Republican opposition in Jersey has yet to unify around a particular nominee, and none of the potentials are all that strong, the real fight for Lautenberg's Senate seat will likely be in the Democratic primary battle between himself and Andrews.

I've got enough reasons to like 'ole Frank. I like that he jumped in and saved a Democratic Senate seat when it sure looked lost to the GOP. I like that in the midst of attacks on his age during that race, he jumped up on a stage and danced a jig on live television, just to prove his vitality. I like him for being a broadly progressive guy, even though he's filthy rich.

But if I needed a more substantive reason to support Frank Lautenberg over his new, fresh-faced Democratic opponent, Rob Andrews, here's all the reason I need:

On October 10, 2002, Rob Andrews was among the 81 House Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

Done. Over. Next. Go Frank!

Posted at April 9, 2008 12:17 AM in response to New Jersey Dem Establishment Struggles To Squash Upstart Challenge To Lautenberg

Today, Rep. Robert Andrews of New Jersey entered the Democratic primary against 84 year-old NJ Sen. Frank Lautenberg for the latter's U.S. Senate seat. According to the Times, it's because Frank's too damn old:

"Opposition to Mr. Lautenberg stems not from any ideological differences but rather his advanced age."

"In a statement, Mr. Andrews said: '2008 is a year of great change in American politics. Millions of new voters have chosen to enter the political process as a means to make our country better. As New Jersey elects a United States senator this year, people from all over the state have expressed the desire to have real choices based on a positive, substantive campaign.'"

I'm not so sold on this "out with the old, in with the new" attack that Rep. Andrews may push in his primary battle against Lautenberg. For one thing, I truly respect Frank's 26 years of public service in the U.S. Senate (not to be confused with the 35 years of experience Hillary Clinton began accumulating her second year of law school).

For another, I remember how the shit went down in September, 2002—two short months before the crucial 2002 congressional midterm elections. At that time, New Jersey, and the Democrats of the U.S. Senate, were saddled with then-Senator Bob Torricelli as their candidate, a man so mired in corruption he made Jack Abramoff look like Coke Stevenson.

Due to the fact that Torricelli was the incumbent senator and a statewide cash machine—despite week after withering week of negative press, endlessly leaking scandal details, and debate after debate featuring Torricelli being raked over the coals on ethics by his Republican opponent Doug Forrester—the party was stuck with him. In a year where the Democrats held the U.S. Senate by one vote (hmm...), Bob Torricelli was the definitive albatross.

When Torricelli's poll numbers cratered in the wake of "severe admonishment" by the Senate Ethics Committee (in addition to the criminal indictment of several of his closest campaign aides), New Jersey's Democratic political establishment went into overdrive to locate a replacement candidate against Republican Doug Forrester.

It just so happened that Frank Lautenberg had retired from the Senate just one year before, and had already expressed the sentiment that retirement "was the worst mistake I ever made". Faced with taking to the voters either the New Jersey equivalent of Edwin Edwards, or a beloved former senator with a sterling reputation for integrity (who just happened to be a multi-millionaire with oodles to spend on his own race), the party bigwigs took the "high road" and went with Lautenberg, stripping Torricelli of his nomination.

The rest is history. Frank went on to cruise to victory over Forrester in a 54-44% rout on Election Day. The rest of the Senate Democrats fared quite differently that day, losing 3 incumbent seats and with them, their Senate majority.

Much of that loss can be attributed to many of those Democratic senators cowardly voting a month prior in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, in the hope that casting their lot with Bush would end the national security debate that had roiled the country since 9/11. Rather than ending it, of course, it only made the Dems look even more spineless than they already did, crushing the morale of the antiwar base of the party, and validating the GOP's false choices on national security.

While Lautenberg was not yet in the Senate for the war resolution, he has been a vocal critic of the Iraq war since its inception. A veteran of WWII, he famously defended attacks on John Kerry's patriotism in 2004 by labeling Dick Cheney as "lead chickenhawk", and rightly defined "chicken hawk" as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."

He has the 6th most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, according to the National Journal. That's ahead of liberal stalwarts like Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, and another aging lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.

Since the Republican opposition in Jersey has yet to unify around a particular nominee, and none of the potentials are all that strong, the real fight for Lautenberg's Senate seat will likely be in the Democratic primary battle between himself and Andrews.

I've got enough reasons to like 'ole Frank. I like that he jumped in and saved a Democratic Senate seat when it sure looked lost to the GOP. I like that in the midst of attacks on his age during that race, he jumped up on a stage and danced a jig on live television, just to prove his vitality. I like him for being a broadly progressive guy, even though he's filthy rich.

But if I needed a more substantive reason to support Frank Lautenberg over his new, fresh-faced Democratic opponent, Bob Andrews, here's all the reason I need:

"On October 10, 2002, Rob Andrews was among the 81 House Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq."

Done. Over. Next. Go Frank!

Posted at April 4, 2008 12:04 AM in response to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) Gets Primary Challenge From Rep. Rob Andrews