lol! You are wired on Sudafed. This is funny (because you are so exquisitely exasperated) and well-written. Thanks for the great post.

Now turn off your computer and go to bed. You need to rest. Obama can take care of himself.

I love it when the Clinton campaign gets all concern troll-y.

Now, feel better. NYQUIL, I think.

As long as we're spculating wildly and all, my guess is that the Unknown Opponents wanted the story to break before Ohio and Texas, but were not successful in accomplishing that goal. I would not be at all surprised if the fact that a long pause between elections was beginning was not part of the private editorial calculus at ABC, i.e., if we're going to do this, we shouldn't do it at a time when the guy's got no chance to fix it before the next primary.

KInd of unfortunate that the Canadian media, which should have been even more circumspect in making that kind of calculation, was less so on the NAFTAgate story, and then the NAFTAgate-gate story.

So the preacher who converted Obama to Christianity turns out to be the type of preacher who orates 'God Damn America' and it's a dirty trick for Obama's political opponent to publicize this?

Must have been a dirty Clinton trick to put Wright on that board too huh?

Wright goes well over the top in his righteous anger about America but such an anger can fuel a push for social justice.

So it is not so much Wright's positions which trouble me as Obama's pretense that he was clueless about what Wright has been preaching.

To claim that you only learned what your Preacher was saying about 9/11 when you started running for President is ridiculous.

"The fracas started Thursday morning, when ABC’s “Good Morning America” ran a Brian Ross expose on Wright that included old video of him saying: “"

Brian Ross has some good stories, but he is also infamous for publishing false links between Saddam and Al Qaeda and that Saddam was behind the antrhax attacks.

I'm very curious about the origins of this.

Did HRC push this? The timing suggests so. The GOP would likely have wanted to use this in say late October.

Also, the lack of context, the spliced up "greatest hits" montage, is hardly responsible journalism. We have no way of knowing from Ross' hack job whether Wright has any positive message or what is typical at the church. Seems like hit-and-run journalism to me. HRC's silence on the issue makes it seem even a little more suspicious.

It seemed to appear at a time when there were a few negative Clinton stories in the news; questioning her "experience", questioning her role in Ireland and other peace talks. To me it broke at a point when I felt, Wow! All this negative Clinton stuff coming out. Looks like it's over. And then came the Wright story.

The timing was very suspicous to me and I doubt it was an accident that it broke when it did. It put the anti-Clinton stories on the back pages which is just where the Clinton campaign wanted them.

Or maybe ABC was simply behind in the ratings.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

Suspicious or not, it's better to get this out now, so far in advance. The Obama campaign had to know the Wright screeds were out there. And if they didn't, then they're incompetent.

And I'm quite impressed with Obama's response.

Nonetheless, the damage has been done. The question remains how effective his response has been in limiting the damage.

And good for the Obama campaign being able to, at least publicly, stop the "REZKO REZKO REZKO" drumbeat.

Although, what will Rae have to say?

Now, since it seems that Barack Obama has been running for President since primary school, what I don't understand and am really having a lot of problems understanding is why Obama didn't cut this relationship off years ago. Is Wright that big a deal on the Chicago South Side? Would it have cost Obama the Senate seat to have distanced himself from Wright years ago?

What hold does (did) Wright have (had) on Obama?

The business of "God damn America" sounds like that old chestnut, The Man Without a Country. I don't think even Karl Rove could dream up something better thant that. Certainly it puts in doubt Obama's judgment.

All of your comments that blindly support Obama, reflect not the ignorance of those reporting, but perhaps your own. Obama did not handle this well. The uncle comment does not pass the smell test. One does not choose one's uncle but a 20 to 25 year relationship with a pastor is a chosen one and one does not attend a megachurch to have a close relationship with fellow church members but rather for that pastor's preaching. I know I attend one. I would leave a church that allowed ANY form of racist preaching.
This type of blind lemming approach to the democratic nominee will lead to the election of McCann and perhaps rightly so. Should the only racism to be tolerated today be that of those against whites and the only stereotypes to be allowed are those against women. YOU LEAVE A CHURCH AS A MEMBER when this occurs. YOU CANNOT COMPARE IT TO BEING ENDORSED BY HAGEE. McCann does not choose to get his spiritual advise from Hagee. I have listened to this blog forever and up to this point been pleased with JMM's fair reporting. You have become so partisan that you lose all sense it is aking you look "fair and balanced" in the truest sense of the Fox spirit.

Kitchen sink means kitchen sink.

I think Barak and his campaign people have handled this just right, and that most Obama supporters - at least the ones most in evidence on this and other liberal blogs - have the right idea: we must have change from the old-style politics, the divisiveness and all the other evils the Clintons and most older white people have wreaked on America, no matter what must be done or how we do it. It's them or us. Once elected, Barak will have the power to set things right and we can proceed to bring the country together. Then blacks will stay loyal to the party and I'll bet even Rev. Wright will calm down a little.

If Barak does not get elected, for whatever reason, the authority and political power of these blogs will be threatened, too, so there's a lot at stake.

I think Barak and his campaign people have handled this just right, and that most Obama supporters - at least the ones most in evidence on this and other liberal blogs - have the right idea: we must have change from the old-style politics, the divisiveness and all the other evils the Clintons and most older white people have wreaked on America, no matter what must be done or how we do it. It's them or us. Once elected, Barak will have the power to set things right and we can proceed to bring the country together. Then blacks will stay loyal to the party and I'll bet even Rev. Wright will calm down a little.

If Barak does not get elected, for whatever reason, the authority and political power of these blogs will be threatened, too, so there's a lot at stake.

After hearing Obama's recent speech in Indiana, in which he referred to the Wright controversary among other things, what came through for me was his sense of compassion, inclusiveness: i.e., disapproving Wright's approach/statements but not blasting the man at the core. (Hate the sin, love the sinner).

And it strikes me that this fundamental compassion is one of the things I really like about this candidate. So the fact that he hasn't left Wright's church over this and hasn't refused to associate with Wright over this makes sense to me in the context of the values Obama exhibits. I get it that it would be more politically expedient to disown anyone who might be scrutinized for their deeds ... but as we've seen, Obama is not the standard politician. His message has been that despite great great differences amongst us, we can be compassionate toward others, recognize that we are all flawed, find a way to respectfully, even forcefully disagree, but still work together. i.e., apply the same compassion to the broader human race that we often do within our families (thus, his "uncle" comment).

Sort of related to this, I remember talking to a woman while I was making calls for Obama campaign who said: "I like a lot of what he says, but I don't like the way he says it. He talks like a preacher. I want him to talk like a politician!"

Well, yea, she was right -- his oratory is informed by preacher style -- and by values beyond the simply political. If it's a dyed-in-the-wool politician you want, yep, Obama's definitely not it!

Jeff Sharlet gets quoted over at Crooks & Liars, and it's a doozy:

In contextualizing Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America,” it might be worth remembering another Jeremiah who expressed similar sentiments: namely, Jeremiah. As in, the prophet of the Hebrew Bible, or the “Old Testament,” if you prefer.

Why does that matter? Because it reminds us that a core function of one who attempts to speak in a prophetic voice is to remind us that we are in this together and that we’ll both prosper and suffer together. Many evangelical Christians speak of a “gift of discernment,” not unlike the “gift of tongues.” Us democratically-minded folk might do well to remember that that core concept of a democracy is that we all have some gift of discernment. So let’s use ours and consider the prophetic statements on offer:

1. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate feminists and queer people.

2. John Hagee says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently — because we tolerate Muslims.

3. Jeremiah Wright says America is damned — cursed by God, though not permanently, suffering from hate and division, from bitterness and envy — because we succumb to hating one another.

For my money, my Bible, and my democracy, that last sentiment has the ring of truth, and I’m not even a religious man.

That doesn’t mean it’s a sentiment for a campaign trail. But it does mean that in framing this, we might want to turn our anger toward Fox and the NY Post and all those denouncing Jeremiah Wright rather than the man who says we suffer because of racism. Here is a pastor trying, perhaps not successfully, to preach accountability for hate, not for tolerance. And here is a media that is demanding that we NOT be held accountable for hate.

That is, mainstream media is telling us we must tolerate hate — Hagee — but not those who don’t believe we should tolerate hate — Wright.

Jeremiah Wright’s words were harsh, as were Jeremiah’s. As were Martin Luther King’s — “I have a dream” wasn’t his only speech, and he died holding America accountable for the war in Vietnam and the war against the poor at home. That’s not left, that’s not right, that’s not “racial,” that’s not “post-racial.” It’s prophetic. The Right’s screeching, meanwhile, is simply pathetic.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/16/remembering-another-jeremiah/

Great post, PFKANCSteve!

I too might have to try Sudafed as wit enhancer...
LOL!

For those who haven't seen it, this is the text of Wright's sermon "The Audacity of Hope" -- one that we know Obama heard and attended to:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html#more

Which is more typical of Wright's ministry? I don't know but it is certainly a critical and important question.

As to the timing of this story, I can't believe that Clintons or even the Republicans are behind it, because there is not a time when it would be LESS damaging to Obama. It may still be terribly damaging, but I think it would have been immediately fatal at so many other times:
-- last fall when he was barely struggling along and the race was in the 'elimination' phase?
-- after Iowa when he was brand new as a 'serious' candidate?
-- after NH when you could say Iowa was a fluke?
-- after, or before, SC when the push was on to make him look like the 'black candidate'?
-- the week before Super Tuesday, which was Clinton's best chance to knock him out of the race?

As fascinating as "why now?" may be, I am transfixed wondering "why not earlier?" I think that on Friday a lot of people thought "Okay, that's it. Obama's candidacy is dead." A lot of people still think that way and maybe they are right ... but the number is fewer than it was on Friday, and maybe it will lessen each day.

And, the "beauty" of this timing (from Obama's perspective) is that there is NO WAY to declare it dead until April 22nd, quite a long while from now. Until then, he will have to be treated with the respect due the unarguable front-runner. And some people are going to conclude from that treatment that maybe it wasn't so awful after all because no one seems to be shunning him. So, given that the story was inevitably going to come out, it probably could not have happened at a better time for Obama.

Which takes me back to the utterly fascinating question of "why not earlier?" I can see the Republicans waiting - don't let it come up until the general election when there isn't a chance for Clinton (or Gore or Edwards or anyone else) to step in and be the candidate. However, the Clinton campaign? As much as I have objected strenuously to the techniques of the Clinton campaign, I couldn't have faulted them for bringing this out -- even if they had to do it themselves -- at some more critical time. This is not a made-up story (Muslum, NAFTA-gate, Reagan-loving); it is not insinuations or not dependent on code words. It has teeth and raises legit questions (to which I believe there are legitimate answers, but perhaps most voters won't), and THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN THERE ALL ALONG. All you had to do pick up on the mumblings that have been around all along (including Obama's own dis-inviting of Wright to his formal initiation of the campaign), buy copies of the sermons readisly available on DVD, and then piece together a sample (or perhaps the complete list? an important question) of 'lowest moments.'

So why did they NOT do it at a time when it would have been far more effective? (And 'squeamishness' or 'wanting to take the high road' simply don't pass the believability test.) (Nor will concern that they could get tarred in the process, since - I've read - Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves met with Rev. Wright during their days of crisis. Whitewater didn't stop them from pointing fingers at Rezko.) I'm more puzzled by this question than I have been by anything else in this whole campaign.

One thing i always find annoying about the MSM is they act like it isnt their fault that they are talking about race all day instead of talking about the issues or other news.

The President of United Church of Christ
Rev John Thomas
speaks on Rev Jeremiah Wright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYla5xdPTUg&eurl=http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/

Wow. vicissitudes -- that never even faintly crossed my mind, but it surely makes sense. It also makes sense with the multi-hour sit-down with the Tribune and Sun having the same timing. That is something that obviously was going to have to be done as well. I didn't think any more of that than that this is one of the only times there have been a day or two for it to happen.

I hope you are right. I also hope he survives it because I very much want him to be the nominee (and the President!) but if he's not going to be, for goodness sake end it now!!! And if he is, even more reason to end it now.

Someone in addition to Donna B. said something about a decision being made in the next week or so. I wish I could remember who, but someone else on the inner circle who would know. I'll try to remember. Pelosi has also been consistent in saying there will be a candidate before the convention, although that is more vauge. Very interesting. Thank you.