Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Sen. Obama Says Rev. Wright Apologized; Did We Miss It? I Guess Not. More Trouble.
Sen. Obama's intereview with Barbara Walters is looking worse and worse. I thought his statement that he would have left the church but for Wright's retirement and apology was bad because (1) it contradicted his previous statement about how he couldn't abandon Wright/church/Black community; and (2) it again raises the question about why he didn't speak out in opposition to the older generation's views.
But, the apology reference kinda got lost in the I-woulda-left remark, and it vaguely bothered me. Now, the AP has explained why - there hasn't been any apologetic statement from Rev. Wright (not that he necessarily needs to apologize for his beliefs). And, the Obama camp is explaining that the Senator was talking HYPOTHETICALLY.
Oh, please. Here's the statement, and the article: "Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church," http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright
Because he might very well be the Democrats' nominee, I really hope he stops digging. Seriously.
Comments (21)
Perhaps the Rev. made a more private statement to Barack? You're right to question the opening in his statements for double-speak, but the lack of a news conference doesn't mean Wright and Obama haven't spoken to each other about this.
March 28, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really believe what you wrote Demosaur or are you just covering up?
March 28, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not intimate with either Obama or Wright, and don't believe the first sentence of my post was stated as an absolute. In fact, the "Perhaps" and question mark at the end denote it as mere suggestion.
Do I believe that Obama and Wright have had private discussions about Wright's statements? Absolutely. Can I give an accurate account of the content and context of those discussions? No -- but neither can you, correct?
March 28, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a question. Appreciate the answer.
March 28, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Expect a fresh round of YouTube mashups, later to migrate into Republican 527s.
March 28, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, thanks, demosaur. Yes, that was certainly a possibility. But, I think Burton quashed that possibility with his clarification.
March 28, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
There two things seriously lacking in this country: listening skills and reading comprehension.
If you actually watched the interview and paid attention then you would have realized that he was talking about the circumstances that would've led him to leave IF Wright was still the Pastor. He had already stated that he didn't need to leave the church because Wright had retired. He never said that Wright needs to NOW make a public apology for him to remain at his church.
Also, leaving a church is not the same as disowning a person. You can have respect and appreciation for a person yet choose to not listen to them every Sunday (which is a moot point since Wright is no longer the pastor).
I have noticed that people consistently take a snippet of his words and completely miss the point of what he is trying to say. In the youtube world when you can actually view an interview rather than relying on sensational quote plucking from news media outlets, you should take of it.
Anyway, all this harping on Wright is getting remarkably played out. He has clearly sufficiently dealt with the controversy and majority of the country has moved on. He doesn't need to convince 100% of the people in this country to accept his position, like him, or even vote for him...so if 30% of the people out there who would never support him anyway want to keep beating a dead horse then so be it...they will only look that much more petty for it (like Hillary Clinton did this week).
March 28, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whadaya mean, "later", Lalo? Won't the Repub 527's be the ones MAKING the mashups?
March 28, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am beginning to suspect Lalo will be the one making the youtube mashups if you read her posts and vitriol against the Obama campaign.
March 28, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does make sense if you think that he was speaking hypothetically. It is simply bad phrasing.
What if he had put it this way
" If the the reverend Wright had not not retired,or at the least acknowledged that his remarks were offensive then i would have felt uncomfortable staying at the church. However the reverend did retire."
Makes sense to me
March 28, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will have to credit Obama on this one. He goes on a show like The View knowing that he can slide this statement through without getting questioned as to when exactly did the Rev apoligize. Then his statement is played all day long on the media friendly stations without question. I am amazed, the first thing I wondered was when did this happen?? I keep waiting for someone in the media to tear this down, but then this has been a problem throughout the campaign.
March 28, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senator saw two ways he could stay in his church:
• If Reverend Wright retired.
• If Reverend Wright stayed on the job and apologized.
One of the two happened. Only one.
We know which one happened.
We know which one didn't happen.
It's straightforward stuff.
Why manufacture a complication?
March 28, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's pretty slippery
March 28, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was only trying to say, and sometimes I can't seem to write it out correctly, that when you first hear his statement it sounds as if the Rev apoligized. It was a smart thing to do, and I believe as good of a speaker as Obama is, he had no doubt as to how most people would "hear" it.
For me, this is what I don't care for about Obama. I see him shift a little each time he speaks of this. I see the same tactics in his politics. As a person who has his pay negotiated every 3 years, I do not like to see this shift just to reach an agreement. An example would be his negotiating the law about the nuclear leaks. At first requiring, and then asking them to consider reporting these leaks.
I ask that you don't crucify me here, I am only offering my opinion, which you are free to disagree with.
March 28, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clowns are reaching. Now you're trying to imply something that was never even alluded to.
Wake Up.
March 28, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've now watched/listened to the ENTIRE interview (not just the part about Rev. Wright), at http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/video, and I am willing to say that Sen. Obama DID just phrase it badly. It DID give the impression (to many, in the media and likely those watching) that he had retired and apologized. But, that is NOT what he meant. I apologize that I wrote this article on the basis of the AP report without looking for the context.
That said, the first two points about his statement on The View remain. I am sorry that he is moving around on this, even though I think he is honestly struggling with the issue. There are still too many people who might support him if he satisfies their concerns.
March 28, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
UCAdy04, I completely agree, I think people are so used to the yelling sound bites of what is called news these days that they have lost the ability to hear or read anything that is thoughtful.
After a while it looks to me like nothing more than sharks circling, looking for a hint of blood.
March 28, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see what's difficult to understand. My feeling is, this is a big deal to those people who want it to be a big deal. I'm not sure what azpaul's motivation is for picking apart this latest Obama-Wright tidbit.
Having read Barack Obama's memoir and his interviews regarding his spirituality, I would say that he feels genuine love and gratitude for Rev. Wright. And it makes sense to me that he could feel deep disappointment and hurt at some of the things Wright has said as well.
As for considering whether to reamain at his church -- part of what guides Obama's decisions at this point in his life has to be concern for his daughters. They are approaching an age when they would start to attend the actual church services. While Obama feels an understanding and a degree of tolerance for Wright's occasional bouts of extremism, he surely worries about how those views might be confusing and possibly hurtful for his children to hear.
Everyone should bear in mind: this is deeply personal stuff--a person's spirituality and religious affiliation. Regarding Wright, Obama has answered the questions that are appropriate in the context of his campaign for President. It appears most people are satisfied with his explanation.
What's relevant here--the worry that Obama might secretly be a radical "angry black man"--has been addressed.
March 28, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the "point" laura is that if this isn't a big deal than the supposed slights,kitchen sink throwing, denigration..etc etc...that you and the rest have labeled Hillary with is not big deal as well. Wouldn't you agree?
March 28, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville,
In general, I make a very conscientious effort to be respectful to bloggers on this site. I try very hard to avoid criticizing another's intelligence or using disrespectful names for people like "Hillbot," "Clintonista," etc. I also avoid beginning sentences with "you people" or "XXXXX supporters are the kind of people who (fill in your favorite fantasy construct)."
Now. Here's what I have to say to you: this is the last time I will respond to one of your comments. I will ignore you from now on, because I think your posts are disrespectful. Your comments are sometimes completely unintelligible. I think you act like an obnoxious troll. If you're curious about what has reinforced my opinion of you, you might want to look at my response (below) to you from a recent thread (which you may not have seen).
Either
1.She is so strongheaded she will do anything that comes into her pretty little head and not care what other people think.
2. She is the consumate politician and will take a poll on the time of day if she could and let others have a great effect on what she thinks. She will do anything and compromise anything to be elected.
Which is it? You've read enough and said both things in the past. Pick one please and stick with it. Otherwise you become one more Obamaista latching onto the teat of "hope"
Posted by Louisville1975
March 27, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
----------------------
March 28, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your comment, Laura. My motivation is that I want the country to elect either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. I think Sen. Obama can be a very good President. Having listened to/watched Sen. Clinton for the past 16 years, I know that she can be a great President. (I also believe that this is precisely why the Republicans have spent the past 16 years caricaturizing her.)
I am legitimately concerned about the effect that the Rev. Wright sermons AND Sen. Obama's responses to the issue are going to have on our chances to re-take the White House in November.
I appreciate, understand and agree with much of what you said about Sen. Obama's spirituality and his decision about whether or not to stay at TUCC. I have defended him on this forum on the latter issue, and have lauded him for the speech he gave and the discussion he tried to move forward.
However, I would hope that you (and Obama supporters, in general) can objectively understand my concerns about whether this hurts his (our) chances in November.
All three candidates remaining have their electoral flaws, none are going to sail thru. But, I believe that Democrats are going to have two very good candidates who are very close after the primaries and caucuses are done.
I think that in mid-June, we (thru our delegates) should take a clear-eyed look at which candidate is best-situated to win the election in November. Let's get it decided, then spend the last 4 1/2 months ensuring that my AZ Senator is not elected President.
(I now release you back to your battle with Louisville.)
March 28, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment