Breaking - The Church of Hate

by soyousay, Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:03:17 PM EST

I've never seen a church host so much hate. Below is a video of Father Michael Pfleger mocking Hillary Clinton.

Here's his relationship/information in reference to Obama.

Father Michael Pfleger, a fiery liberal social activist and a white reverend at an African-American church -- St. Sabina's Catholic Church on the South Side of Chicago -- is a longtime friend and associate of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, having known him since the presidential hopeful was a community activist. In September, the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/05/priest-and-obam.html




Tags: trinity church, Obama, mocking Hillary, father michael pfleger video (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 223 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

How many times must you smear without cause until your account gets banned?


by Why Not on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:04:35 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (1.75 / 4)

This is valid information. You can hide your head in the sand...


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:06:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hahahahahahahahaha (1.00 / 1)

and you can pull your head out of your ass...


by Slim Tyranny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS (none / 0)

If we stop feeding them, they will go away.


by not Brit on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FYI (2.00 / 1)

This video won't go away. You can blame the video on me but I blame trinity church.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FYI (none / 0)

Um..... Michael Fleger is a Catholic priest. Saint Sabina's, if memory serves.

But keep flogging the dead horse. It's pointless, and unseemly, but the poor beast is beyond any pain caused by your flailing away at it.


by BlueinColorado on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FYI (none / 0)

longtime friend and associate of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, having known him since the presidential hopeful was a community activist. In September, the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama doesn't back those comments (2.00 / 4)

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in a statement he was "deeply disappointed" in Father Michael Pfleger, after the priest --in a scene caught on videotape-- mocked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y) from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago--the home church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause," Obama said in a statement.

And the reverend said:

"I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/ obama_deeply_disappointed_in_f_1.html


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:37:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama doesn't back those comments (2.00 / 1)

what a crock Michael Pfleger... after another attempt at damaging obama. No you're not sorry, you even commented on how you knew the live stream was on.. you were showboating your hate.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for posting this! (2.00 / 1)

That preacher is a jerk, but it doesn't say anything about Obama.  

The sad thing is that I actually like the first part of the video where he was talking about how white people can't say they aren't responsible for the past without acknowledging that they are beneficiaries of it.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:10:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks for posting this! (2.00 / 1)

The argument for reparations is fairly straightforward:

1) The US is an incredibly rich country.  2)  It is rich because it was able to industrialize quickly.  3) It was able to industrialize quickly because of cheap raw materials obtained through human enslavement.  4) Slavery's salutory effect on the US economy was passed on down the years onto the US population at large, as was it's negative effect on the descendants of slaves themselves.  Putting it more bluntly, white citizens have benefitted while black citizens have suffered, long after slavery was abolished.

Or: I have no personal responsibility for it, but am I benefitting from it?  Absolutely.  Anyway, I'm ambivalent on the subject - I think people get caught up in the "blame" part of it instead of the plain "cause-and-effect" rationale behind it.  If you could convince me that it would help redress race-based inequalities I'd be for it.  If you convince me that it won't, or will make them worse, then I'm against it.  It's a practical consideration instead of a moral one.

Anyway, I didn't like the second part of his sermon either, obviously.  And this is also like the 10th diary on the subject.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:55:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you realize (1.00 / 2)

that all of the angst about Black Liberation Theology is being peddled by cold warriors dredging up oppo-research from the 70-80s.

People like Larry Johnson were busy in central american wars against liberation theology and tried all of this smear crap back then to de-legitimize dissent against the death squads by making decent progressives feel only black radicals cared, only real communists cared.

It is no surprise larry is up to his old tricks.


by Is This Snark on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Larry Johnson was a Republican. (2.00 / 2)

Hell, he still is.
He works hand in hand right now with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and every other disgusting p.o.s republican slime machine. He encourages his readers to call Hannity and smear the hell out of Obama. He provides information to try to smear Obama to Bill O''Reilly.

He pretends he's a Democrat, but he's a lying sack of shit that is pure destruction to our party.

His hair is a disaster. A bowl cut from 1962.  A child would not walk around looking like that.

His soul is dark and evil and disgusting.  He is trying to destroy this party and our nominee. His site is filled with racist hate, smears, threats, and some of the ugliest vicious racist rants on the internets. It's KKK material.

Susan UnPC is a deranged soul on that site. She is a front page writer that has lost her mind. She has written that Obama is a racist, hates ALL WHITES, wants us all dead, that Obama had affairs with many women, notably Samantha Powers. She writes that Obama drinks, and does coke. That he's a addled, sick, deranged drug user who is a muslim terrorist out to destroy the United States. Don't believe me? Go to the site. I won't give your slimy link. Look it up. No quarter. It's so hateful and beyond the pale insane I won't do it for you. Susan and Larry belong in mental institution, and they scare the shit out of me.

That's where this diary information came from. A republican, hate filled vicious site out to do harm to Obama. This diarist is as scary and vicious as they are.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They are cheap and practical (2.00 / 1)

I agree with everything you said, but how DARE you insult those of use with bowl cuts.

I've tried everything, but I can't help that I have a funny shaped head and straight hair.

Boo-hoo-hoo.


by emptythreatsfarm on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am sure that your bowl cut looks (2.00 / 1)

ten billion times better than Larry Johnson's. I should have written that better. Bowl cuts, when cut correctly, are fine. His is a cold dreary disgusting embarrassing balding mess.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's hard to get a good haircut in the boonies (none / 0)

I actually look a bit like Larry.

But I hate the bastard.


by emptythreatsfarm on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that disgusting bastard (2.00 / 1)

is a disgusting bastard.
I hope you don't get called a disgusting bastard because someone thinks your that bad bowl cutted bastard by mistake.
I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent analysis (2.00 / 2)

I often wonder about both Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson..... being Hillary supporters to cover their butts.

What the CIA has been up to is not a very pretty picture.


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FYI (none / 0)

Then you got issues, but not the ones you may think.

A representative of NOW appeared in Ohio, as reported by NYT long ago, and complained in just the tones in the tape about how dare they run another man against Hillary, "and a black man at that!" This was, according to the story, why NOW sent people into Ohio to work for Hillary. And it's logical in a grim sort of way, the notion being that somehow the unfairness of another man running against her was either juiced up or blunted by the fact that he was black. Another 'first' competing with her 'first'. I wondered long ago on another website  whether part of the anger against Obama in this race was that it was thought that he was able unfairly to compete against her because the 'first'ness took the acid out of the guyness and diluted her 'first' position. This priest is only parroting what NOW already got caught by NYT saying.

And nobody can say he belongs to a strange, black and therefore foreign church, either. Not this time.


by Christy1947 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:28:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

There's no room in the sand since folks like you have taken up all the space.


by gchaucer2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why can't the Obama people deal with reality (2.00 / 1)

They ALWAYS want to attack the messenger, and they NEVER address the points that are brought up.

Its not a good omen for Obama if he ends up in the White House


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:09:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this snark? (1.00 / 2)

probably


by Is This Snark on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you a one-joke schmuck? (1.00 / 1)

Probably


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then, stop screwing around! (none / 0)

If you've got something to say, say it.  If you're just playing around, then go play a video game.


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pea brain! (none / 0)


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:30:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this snark? (2.00 / 1)

Yes. This is hate filled disgusting snark. Seriously.


I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.
by TheFullBerry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

Since when is lose association considered valid information with regards to a candidate for office.  If that is the case McCain and Clinton better watch out, they have plenty of lose associations that will play worse than this.


by Why Not on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:10:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

"lose association"<----agree it is a "lose association" It's also too funny :D


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

at this point trinity has become more about what obama is not about i.e. sad pathetic joke.  I think Obama's decency of not throwing them under the bus is being disrespected by the church. they are definitely showboating fully aware of the live streams.

Only thing one can advise obama is hopefully he will recant his statement of being a member there period.  

Let alone what is their fixation w/ Hillary from the get go.  To claim she is racists is low class.  Hillary was at MLK rallies when it was not cool for a white person let alone a white woman to be seen there... and she has a strong civil rights record.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"account gets banned?" (none / 0)

such a suggestion is a true sign of the Cult and intolerance of Cultists to other opinions.
You can start with "account gets banned" and what other things you have in mind? account owner to be jailed? or killed?
tell us more, we need to know...
Landslide of lies
by engels on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "account gets banned?" (none / 0)

Well lets see.  The cult I am supporting is called the Democratic party.  Maybe you and the poster should look into that before posting garbage like the garbage that is this diary.  This site is dedicated to supporting Democratic causes and furthering the election of Democrats.  This trash is nothing but a smear based upon a lose association between one candidate and pastor who preached at his church.

Your opinion that this sort of thing has any place on a Democratic blog is inconsquential.  Additionally, your belief that this is how people should conduct themselves to determine who the best candidate is in a presidential contest rather than an argumnt based upon policy or ability is seveerly misguided.

Your claim that I am proposing that anything happen, beyond the deletion of the account of somone who knowingly violates the site rules in order to sow discord in the democratic community, is utterly false.

You are a provocatour and, as your name suggests, are probably looking for ways to irk democrats.  Your account/behavior is the classic text book definition of what it means to be a troll.

I award you no points, and may the site adminstrator have not mercy on your continued posting priveldges.


by Why Not on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "account gets banned?" (none / 0)

again, you are reminding  me the beginning of this guy (only you are hiding behind the proxy of the internet & PC):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beria
Landslide of lies
by engels on Fri May 30, 2008 at 07:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "account gets banned?" (none / 0)

This is a pretty funny accusation from a guy with the screen name "Engels".

I don't have a problem with dissent of opinion.  I have a problem with trolls coming to this site to divide the democratic electorate.

If you aren't a troll, you certainly are acting like one.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...


by Why Not on Fri May 30, 2008 at 10:46:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You again? (2.00 / 1)

Denny call you up?


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:04:52 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

This has been posted at least twice already.  But thanks for the extensive and original analysis.  Sigh.  


by HSTruman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:05:02 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

(The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.  The answer is blowing in the wind)


by Why Not on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:05:28 PM EST

Breaking (none / 0)

The diary of hate -- and bitterness, and fundamental vacuousness.  


by gchaucer2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST

Re: Breaking (2.00 / 1)

Are you talking about the preist?


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking (2.00 / 2)

I have no idea what a "preist" is.  


by gchaucer2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This smear diary is filled with failure (2.00 / 2)


by Slim Tyranny on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:07:15 PM EST

Obama supporters... (none / 0)

You can't handle the truth.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:07:53 PM EST

Re: Obama supporters... (2.00 / 4)

BWAAAAAHAAAAAAA!  Now quote something from "The Shining."


by gchaucer2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters... (none / 0)

hmmm, I would like to order a slice of irony (you make it fresh here right) with a scoop of hypocrite on the side.
Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

When did you serve in the military? (none / 0)


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

Wow.  A church that Senator Clinton has basically attacked and mocked has said things about her that are less than kind.

The nerve!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:08:06 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

This priest is full of hate. That's too bad. Whatever happened to "unity" and love? heh, not at the church of trinity.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

If he's full of hate -- you must be kindred spirits.


by gchaucer2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:11:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

They are the only church I can think of to have been mocked like this in recent history.

They're mad about it.  And you're attacking them for being mad!

Jesus tapdancing Christ, stop being so stupid!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was just about (none / 0)

to ask you the same question.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 4)

Breaking - we're tired of the gotcha BS.  Dig up some stuff on McCain and we might be interested.


by rfahey22 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:08:48 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (1.00 / 1)

But it's so easy because Obama has dozens of "gotcha" moments and that's why he makes a lousy candidate.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 2)

Well then you should be well paid by Drudge to find them.  Quit giving us the good stuff for free!


by rfahey22 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats it... Nomatter how important, if its bad (2.00 / 3)

information that we need to know about Obama, it has to wait until the right wing press brings it up after WE give him the nomination.

In other words, we have to stumble blindly into nominating Obama regardless of the facts, whatever they are.

Thats their logic.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Huh? (2.00 / 1)

You are giving him the nomination.  You didn't vote for him.  


by gchaucer2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thats it... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not going to spend the next few months reading National Enquirer-level stories just to appease a few people who want the presumptive nominee to fail.  There's at least eight years of Clinton stories that haven't even seen the light of day because some around here have a lot more decency than others.


by rfahey22 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:15:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Presumptive Nominee" is arrogant (1.00 / 1)

No Dem. political campaign has ever pulled this crap before.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:20:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well not since 2004 (2.00 / 2)

when Kerry supporters called him the presumptive nominee AFTER NEW HAMPSHIRE


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Architek, I've come to this conclusion (1.00 / 1)

A significant percentage of Obama backers would rather lose the GE with Obama than win with Clinton.  The reason I think they feel this way is that many of them are part of a relatively despised ideological grievance wing of the party and their favorite candidates rarely get close to a nomination let alone an election.  So, even if the nomination is just a pyrrhic victory, it's the closest thing to a victory they're likely to see.


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:16:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That would only be an appropriate conclusion, if.. (2.00 / 1)

we did not think he could win.  Since we do think he can win, you conclusion is worth the same as Harvey's (of Jimmy Stewart fame).  You don't think he can win.  I don't agree with you, but I can't stop you from thinking that.  Stop projecting on us your thoughts on Obama.  We know he can win and some (not me) think Hillary can't.  Because some of Obama's supporters thinks Hillary can't win does that mean that you are trying to promote a candidate that will lose in the General?


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't say supporters didn't think he could win (none / 0)

I said that many supporters would rather lose with him than win with her.  So, even if those people were willing to believe she had a much better chance of winning (a position their psychology prevents them from accepting) than him, they would still want him to be the nominee.


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry for misinterpreting you, but... (2.00 / 1)

you're still wrong.  It's not a matter of psychology or anything else.  We agree with Obama.  We like him.  We think he'll be a great president and we already know he's a great candidate.  All you are doing is projecting on other people what you think.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:13:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't believe (none / 0)

she has a much better chance of winning. I don't care what polls say, they also said Kerry, Dukakis and McGovern had the best chances of winning.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I didn't say... (2.00 / 1)

I'm an Obama supporter and I'd rather win.

I believe Obama has a much better chance to win in the GE than does Clinton. That said, I also believe that she would most likely win.

I'm well aware that she polls better than Obama right now. That's because Obama is running against McCain and McCain is running against Obama; no one is running against Clinton. Were that to change, you'd see her polling drop right back down to where it was before the narrative shifted to Obama vs. McCain -- Clinton would drop back below Obama. She's benefiting temporarily from running unopposed.

If in fact there was some serious reason to believe that Obama were unelectable and Clinton electable, then I would have to support Clinton. McCain needs to lose this election. But for the moment I both prefer Obama and believe him to be much the stronger GE candidate.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why? (none / 0)

Please tell me.  But don't give me utopian idealism.  Give me concrete reasons.


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why? (none / 0)

He runs well in most Democratic stronghold states (of course). He runs better in some battleground states (MI, for instance) and worse in others (FL) than Clinton.

The plan of counting on Ohio and Florida to win in a 10-state EV victory hasn't worked particularly well in 2000 or 2004. Admittedly, it should have worked better in 2000 than it was allowed to, but still, it's a dangerous, narrow strategy, both short and long-term.

Obama breaks that logjam.

Until the recent break in campaigning, Clinton consistently polled behind Obama in EV on nearly every metric besides the MyDD tracker. It's much more reasonable to attribute the current polling to the combination of Hillary-supporter resistance and lack of any attacks on Hillary than anything else, and to a large extent both of those resolve themselves when there's a nominee. Similarly, were Clinton to suddenly become the nominee, her numbers would plummet as Obama-supporter resistance became a factor.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, will energized the far-right Republican base more than a Clinton nomination. McCain isn't energizing them, and I don't think even the most hardcore racists among them will be any more energized against Obama than they would be against Clinton. Obama runs much better among Independents and moderate Republicans than does Clinton (or any Democratic nominee in recent memory).

Put it all together, look back at polling that predates the cessation of anti-Clinton campaigning, and you consistently see an electoral map that gives Clinton a very narrow, very risky victory and Obama a wider, lower-risk victory. Even now there's a lot of data to suggest that Clinton remaining in the race is causing Obama's polling to skew about 5% down (i.e. if you poll without asking the Clinton v. McCain question, that change alone improves Obama's polling 5%). Factor that in, and Obama's not looking at nearly so narrow a victory as it appears.

While I agree that Wright creates a window for 527's to attack, I don't think it's anywhere near that strong, and there are months of polling to support that. On the other hand, the mountains of baggage the Clintons have creates the same window -- it's just that Obama and his campaign haven't gone there. There's no reason to believe the 527's won't, and it honestly doesn't matter one bit how much of it has been discredited. The people who it'll sway in the first place don't care that it's been discredited. Obama's numbers already reflect Wright; Clinton's numbers don't reflect the "issues" that will come up in the campaign, because Obama hasn't made them campaign issues. That creates an enormous amount of room for her numbers to slip.

Obama's negatives are also consistently lower than Clinton's, and his positives consistently higher than Clinton's. Put those together and it's very hard to see her outperforming him broadly in the GE.

Hopefully that's enough concrete reasons; I certainly don't see any utopian idealism in it.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

Boring!


Obama/Warner 2008
by MissVA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:08:53 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 6)

BREAKING NEWS!  Adding the word "BREAKING" to a diary title makes it better, even if the news has been reported multiple times already!


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:09:02 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 5)

Is this breaking snark?

Serious breaking question.


by rfahey22 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:10:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

This diary certainly is broken.


From a Hillary supporter: We laughed as that became our mantra - "Barack can't win!"..... ....."he can go to hell and i'll pay for his way there."
by Cochrane on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:24:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

This is neither breaking, nor news..

"talk amoungst yourselves.."


by Why Not on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:23:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 3)

Obama's Response:

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."

Let's get real! Obama is not responsible for this guying acting like a fool!


by Djo Dos on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:10:06 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

This would be a much bigger condemnation if some around here didn't occasionally say that Obama should have waited his turn.  

But they do...presumably because it's how they feel.  


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)


by katmandu1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

Ruh roh, it appears they don't only have crazy black preachers at Barack Obama's church! Here is a crazy white preacher (first in history!), Michael Pfleger, guest-preaching at Trinity recently. He's NUTS!

That was the lead at Wonkette. LOL.  http://wonkette.com/400031/meet-barack-o bamas-crazy-white-but-maybe-black-guest- preacher-one-time


by katmandu1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:13:13 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

lallalaaalalaaaaaaaa. im not listening.

[There is some thing cooking in that trinity church.]


by alyssa chaos on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:13:13 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

I saw virtually no problem with what he said.  The bit about the crying was a little mean, but so what?  Am I alone here?


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:13:47 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

...and there is where the problem lies. That's why Obama will lose. You don't understand the preaching of hate.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

No, no, no.  Don't just say it.  Rationalize it.  What was hateful about what the man said?


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (1.00 / 1)

No, no, no
Rev...Reverend Wright, is that you?

Reverend, FYI; Mocking Clinton is hateful, a preacher/pastor/preist is suppose to teach the word of God/love.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you new? (2.00 / 1)

Clearly you're not Catholic, because if you are, you'd know there is no love in their sermons, only fire, brimstone and damnation.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

As one of my law professors would have said, "That is the answer to a question I didn't ask?"  Are you that guy who Chris Mathews had to ask 24 times what Neville Chamberlain did wrong?  Now again, slowly ... why was it hateful what he said?


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 2)

Yeah right, I threw off my Baptist roots because I couldn't take any more lectures about the wrath of an angry god. There are many that teach a God=Fear.


by Djo Dos on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:35:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

I didn't say I thought it would go over with middle America.  I said I didn't personally see anything wrong with most of what he said.  Your white, "middle America" will go mostly for McCain against any Democrat.  Just like they did against Kerry and Gore.  


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 2)

You're right. We should give the nomination to Hillary before it's too late. I'm so glad you've helped pull us back from the precipice. After this, I bet Obama would only have won 2 states!!

Thanks again!


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 3)

I actually thinks he makes a good point about white privilege.  His mocking of Hillary is a bit over the top, but it hardly qualifies as hateful.


by Captain Bathrobe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

There must be a far greater diversity of opinion on race than I thought on progressive blogs.  Seems like these "don't offend my white pride" folks are coming out of the woodwork.  Or else this is just shifting ethics according to what helps Hillary win.  Or else these are just Republican trolls... My head is spinning.


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, only self-hating whites can be Democrats? (none / 0)


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, only self-hating whites can be Democrats? (2.00 / 1)

Dumb.  Not you, your comment.  I make no claim to dictating who can be a Democrat.  I'm just surprised that there are so many white pride folks on progressive blogs and I suspect the development coincided with Hillary losing to a black man.  That's all.


I like baked beans.
by SpideyDem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have neither white pride nor white shame. (2.00 / 1)

I only listened to about the first 30 seconds of this video and that was enough.  This may be part of the reason poor Appalachians reject Obama.  They see their own backgrounds and the backgrounds of others around them, and then they hear people like Wright and this numbskull telling them about their white privilege.


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:49:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have neither white pride nor white shame. (2.00 / 3)

You raise a valid point in that class privilege is often ignored in this debate.  Poor whites in Appalachia (or anywhere else) would indeed be hard pressed to see themselves as privileged.  
 
by Captain Bathrobe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and that corrolates to Obama (none / 0)

how?

He's not saying them.

You have to hear some of the stupid crap MY friends say.

Guess I can never be a politician.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:40:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is an old saying (none / 0)

"Show me who your friends are and that tells me who you are."  These people aren't just loose acquaintances.


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My grandfather (2.00 / 1)

thought woman should be slapped everytime they disobey you.

One of my best friends thinks genocide of Muslims is the way to defeat terrorists

My cousin thinks black people should be sent back to Africa.

I don't believe in any of that. You mean to tell me none of your friends are controversial?

What a boring person you must be.

I'd roll out the list of corrupt friends of Hillary, but I'm trying to be the bigger person.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"white privilege" is history.. (none / 0)

"privilege" is based far more on education now.

At least at the higher levels. And Hillary is a woman so what you are implying doesn't imply to her.

52% of Americans are women and women have had the vote since 1919 but we still have not had a woman President.

That sounds an awful lot like "privilege" to you, huh?


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "white privilege" is history.. (none / 0)

I disagree that white privilege is history any more than male privilege is history.  They are not mutually exclusive.  Both whites and men continue to benefit from past, and ongoing, racism and sexism.  

FWIW, I believe that Hillary has been the victim of quite a bit of sexism, mostly from the right wing and the good ol' boys in the media.  The priest's attack on her, however, was from the angle of criticizing white privilege.  It was mean and over the top, to be sure, but his initial point about white privilege seems valid.


by Captain Bathrobe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Valid to whom? Not more than 20% of whites, I bet (none / 0)

The more time I spend around here the more I agree with a recent WSJ piece where the author said, "Keep the immigrants! Let's deport the multiculturalists."


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Valid to whom? Not more than 20% of whites, I (2.00 / 1)

Different forms of discrimination manifest in different ways.  Even the poorest, least educated white person can get away with driving around a white neighborhood at night without being stopped by police.  A well-educated AA person has more career options than an uneducated white person, but is likely to lose out to a similarly-qualified white person (unless affirmative action is in place).  Women are on average better educated than men but still earn a fraction of what men earn, are less likely to be promoted, etc.  And so on.  Recognizing one form of discrimination, or privilege, does not negate the others.

The problem with privilege is that it isn't obvious to those who have it--it's just "the way things are."  We all feel most keenly the oppression that we, ourselves, suffer.  It's much harder to empathize with the suffering of others when we are preoccupied with our own suffering.  Yet it is that empathy--not guilt--which is crucial to achieving meaningful social justice.  Without empathy and understanding for those who are different, we are easy prey for the divide and conquer tactics that the Right loves so well.

I think this is why we are Democrats.  As flawed as our party is, we all (or most of us) seem committed to understanding and helping our fellow human beings.  The Republican party, but contrast, is ideally suited for people who don't give two shits about anyone different from them.

Sorry to get all preachy.  Feel free to mock me at your leisure. :)


by Captain Bathrobe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Willing to help? Sure. (none / 0)

Willing to listen to incessant grievance and victim entitlement driven rhetoric (I'm not talking about you)?  I'll pass.


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm holding out (2.00 / 1)

on the Norman Hsu diary out of respect...but it's getting REALLY HARD to do it.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:18:31 PM EST

This person is a Catholic priest (none / 0)

who may say these same things in his Catholic church just that there is no video of it.

Obama is responsible for his OWN words and should NOT be responsible for every thing that someone who he knows says.


by puma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:20:05 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 2)

I consider all attempts to smear Obama by association to be twaddle.  Worse, it functions as fifth column twaddle.  The diarist poses questions here.  I will follow my own cultural traditions and answer a question with a question.  Does this diarist want Obama to lose?

Allow me to be clear, I am not accusing.  It is an honest question.  It's completely conceivable that this diarist does not, in fact, want Obama to lose the general election.  But clarity on this issue will affect how we read this and other postings.  


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:21:42 PM EST

Paid Bloggers? (1.00 / 3)

I don't see any other explanation for the Obama blog people.

I hear the going rate is $3-6/post so if they are, they have to make a lot of posts to pay the rent.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:30:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paid Bloggers? (2.00 / 2)

No, we're not paid to post on blogs...  we're in a cult, remember?  The only payment us cultists receive is hope and koolaid.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paid Bloggers? (2.00 / 3)

How am I supposed to respond to your response to my comment in a fair minded way when your sig genralizes and smears any and all supporters of Obama?  Regardless, I find it beyond credibility that you can think of no other explanation for Obama supporters on this site than that they are paid.  Allow me to ask, what are the hypothetical motivations for democratic supporters to blog about a democratic candidate for president?  If you can answer with even one hypothetical, you give the lie to the slur that your comment represents.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paid Bloggers? (2.00 / 2)

There are supporters of both candidates here who are thoughtful, reasonable people.  Then, there are people like the one you just responded to.  In short, you just wasted logic and reason on someone who doesn't want anything to do with either.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paid Bloggers? (2.00 / 3)

Thanks.  I appreciate the tip.  I share your perspective on the balance of well meaning passionate supporters on both sides and on the abusive posters from both as well.  I am well aware of this blogger's pattern.  I have no intention in getting involved in a back and forth unless they surprise me with a reasonable response.  However, I think it important to confront the illogic and expose it, as well as the clear ill intention of the comment, for other readers.  But again, I am grateful for your caution not to get sucked in to a fruitless exchange.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paid Bloggers? (2.00 / 2)

It's worthwhile to respond in a fair-minded way because other people read the comments.  You may not convince your respondent, but others will see that you took the time to respond thoughtfully.

Or you can engage in mockery.  Your call, really.


by Captain Bathrobe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Paid Bloggers? (2.00 / 2)

Agreed.  I think it's important, however, if choosing the mockery option, that it does not merely represent a counter attack sinking to the same level, but humorously exposes the ridiculousness of the statement one is responding to by comparison.

Example: Of course we're paid.  It's rough out here.  That's why we need a democratic president to repair the economy and stimulate employment.  Until then, I'll blog for anyone for well under minimum wage.  It beats working in retail.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What trust fund? (none / 0)

And what 401(k) and corporate VP job did I just "walk" into?


by lombard on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:22:58 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (1.50 / 2)

You've never seen a church host so much hate?

Try this one www.godhatesfags.com

You have no business being in this community.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:23:17 PM EST

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

What did I say that warranted a troll rating lombard?


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

I've personally have never gone to a church that preaches hate....if that's what Obama wants to do.


by soyousay on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (none / 0)

But you would agree that this isn't the most hateful church you've ever seen?


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:35:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've never gone to a church (none / 0)

that preaches hate?

Are you an atheist? I have yet to see a church that doesn't preach some sort of hate.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This priest has now apologized (none / 0)

This is what Father Pfleger has written:

"I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator's Obama's life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them."


by puma on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:24:52 PM EST

Re: This priest has now apologized (none / 0)

Funny how soyousay didn't mention that.

I, for one, have no problem mocking white privilege. Or Hillary.


by PhilFR on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking - The Church of Hate (2.00 / 1)

Let's remember this Pfleger video too:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjJlsGrlb Us&feature=related

Louis Farrakhan will become a subject again in the late summer and early fall from the McCain campaign.  And in addition to Farrakhan's numerous anti-semitic statements, we'll see references to items like these, a frank appraisal from a Chicago Sun-Times Columnist:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/82 1131,CST-NWS-mitch02.article

Why Obama 'denounced' Farrakhan
It wasn't candidate's best move -- but most blacks understand

March 2, 2008

BY MARY MITCHELL Sun-Times Columnist

When Sen. Barack Obama "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

Fortunately for Obama, most black people understand the game.

No matter how many times Farrakhan explains, defends or refutes anti-Semitic comments that have been attributed to him, his kiss is still the kiss of death.

Hours after Farrakhan praised Obama during his annual Saviours' Day speech last Sunday, the Obama campaign moved to distance the candidate from Farrakhan, telling the Associated Press that it did not solicit Farrakhan's support.

Is this columnist telling the truth?  Is Obama's disavowal of Farrakhan a game?


by katmandu1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:26:48 PM EST

5 more days (none / 0)

5 more days and all these people will be banned.


by puma on