I'm going OT in a way (yes, I agree the poster was being an idiot and, more to the point, that this is an issue that should be revisited, if at all, *long* after the election is over and any remaining tempers cooled) --- but it gives me a chance to ask a question that still continues to devil the hell out of me and has since Feb.

As Desidero puts it: "First, did Hillary put videos of Wright up on the internet to see?"

I doubt very much that she did (at the most pragmatic level, if she had, she would have chosen a different time - he had like two months to 'recover') but WHO DID? The video loop came to light via ABC but I've never heard any information, not even speculation, about who put it together. Does anyone know?

BTW, it was skillfully done, because apparently no one else has come up with *additional* clips that are sufficiently abrasive to be paraded about. When you consider that the man has a 30+ year career, most of it on audio or video tape, they must have had to mine a lot of material pretty thoroughly to come up with those 4 (I think it is) mini-clips (one of which, alas, was Wright quoting an American ambassador from a Fox News interview). Too bad they weren't able to find any devastating ones from a time Obama had actually been in the congregation, or they might have succeeded in their goal. ---

Yes, this irritates me no end every time I hear the "he sat there and listened to this stuff for 20 years" line. Fine - if those 30 years of sermons are on tape, then show me what he actually saw!!

Anyway, the point is that no one knows who put that tape together and got it to the press -- just as no one really knows who came up with that Somali outfit picture and got it to Drudge. Whoever did those things, one or more people, had a definite impact on the race this year ...... and I just wonder who it was.

Sorry for highjacking your thread.

They just cannot give up the legend. They are incapable of it. If they did give it up how would they justify and rationalize their own misjudgements and mistakes? Even when they know they're wrong they will stick to the storyline because they cannot and will not admit to errors. To this day they insist that McCain has changed - it can't be that they allowed themselves to be fooled, no, it has to be that McCain who was once wonderful is now bad.

Here's something I've learned after years and years of reading - journalists/reporters know less than just about anyone about anything.

Des,

www.zombietime.com ???

That is a really sick and weird site. What am I missing? Who cares what the guy posts? It's mainly to throw visual crap.

Again, Thank you Hillary of late, Thank you.

Des, you DID miss the forest for the trees. In the response (from reader PB) that Josh posted, 3 out of the four paragraphs highlighted the sleaziness of Bush; one sentence referred to Hillary. When I originally read PB's response I didn't even notice that s/he had mentioned Hillary. PB wrote: "No one campaigns sleazier than a Bush." So why did that single mention of Hillary catch your eye?

And for all the electronic ink McCain's sleaze is getting, I think PB is spot on. This is not a defense of McCain, but what has he done that approaches the Rovian "illegitimate black child" attack in the 2000 primary?

I am an Obama supporter, I will be devastated if McCain wins, but that is because a McCain victory would come ON TOP OF 8 years of the Bush disaster and would do nothing to begin to repair the damage. Sorry, but even a McCain presidency will have a long way to go before it can equal the craven-ness, cynicism, and corruption of the Bush administration.

Only just now?

Since I'm still on my pain-induced cranky streak this week, I will once again chime in where I ordinarily would (and, yes, should) just keep my virtual mouth shut.

Yes, Hillary's campaign pushed Wright onto the MSM's radar during the primaries. Yes, the Politico story about the story only says it was pushed out by "opponents of Obama" who "consider the story a ticking time bomb," but, come on, let us not be, if you'll pardon the expression, naive. Of course it was her shop pushing the story. Her shop, and specifically Howard Wolfson, were manic about pushing out stories they deemed harmful to the opposition.

And you know what? She was right (no pun intended) to do so. And yes, that's a total 180 on my part. I was furious at the time. I was very worried that by crossing the line, she was enabling the Republicans to go places they would not have been able to go without getting hammered by the press.

I now think I was completely wrong about that. In fact, the exact opposite was true. By exhausting this story in the primary, she did Obama and the Democratic party a huge favor. She forced Obama to give the most important speech he'd ever given. She forced Wright to force Obama into a position where he had to break with him. She forced the public to come to grips with it and make peace with it way before the conventions. As a result, if McCain tries to bring it up now, it will provoke nothing but more eye-rolling from the electorate.

Her campaign was saying as much at the time--that it was better for her do do this than have it come out for the first time during the general. At the time, it struck me as a rationalization of epic proportions, but, regardless of whether they were rationalizing, as it happened it was completely true. If she hadn't run this story's tank down to empty in the spring, the Republicans likely would have sprung it in September. Maybe he would have weathered it, maybe not. Glad we're not having to find out.

When was the last time Josh Marshall said anything insightful or original? For a history major, he cannot manage to evaluate recent history very accurately.

Sock it to 'em, Desi.

Are these crib notes from a PUMA rally or what?

Lotta hate up in here over some really old ish.

JFC.

Hello. I am "PB" the reader (or "idiot" as some would have it) who Josh cited in this post.

First off, I just want to say that my reply (which Josh posted in full) was not an attempt to re-open freshly healed wounds that are best left alone. Rather, I offered an objection to Josh's claim that McCain was running the sleaziest campaign since Nixon. My view is that both Bushes ran sleazier campaigns, and for my rationale on that I encourage you to read my original response in its entirety.

As for Hillary, I do not believe her campaign was "sleazier" than McCain's, and nowhere did I say this. (I wasn't attempting to imply it either.) Rather, I offered a simple observation that, for whatever reason, there are places that McCain has chosen not to go that Hillary did.

Whatever the genesis of the Wright issue, Hillary did attempt to make a campaign issue of it, and with some success. As an Obama supporter, I was not happy about that at the time, but I would not characterize the way she addressed the issue as "sleazy" either. Wright was (to a limited degree in my mind) a legitimate issue to raise (far more so than the Ayers association), and Obama's handling of the situation was an important part of the vetting process. In the end, I think it was fortunate that this issue was addressed so fully during the primaries, because it would have been a much bigger distraction if it first came up during the general election.

I only raised the issue at all because I know that many Republicans would like to see McCain raise Wright as an issue, and are angry that he has not done so. I don't particularly give him any credit for this, he had already publicly ruled it out as an issue, and bringing this up as a desperate last minute attack would likely backfire badly. I think McCain knows this.

wow the apologist got all worked up. said it before and i'll say it again: Hillary lost more than just the primary. this is one "hard working white american" that will never again support her candidacy for president. the desperate and McCain-style careening at the tail end -- particularly the "changing goalposts" game just turned my stomach. her favorables tanked just like McCain's (the other "qualified" candidate - remember?) once she went negative, and it is unlikely that she would be able to change those significantly or run a viable campaign for president with same. after the primaries, that suits me just fine. here's hoping she has a long and helpful career in the senate.