Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama May Not Have Fully Contained Damage From Ex-Pastor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-06-08 11:50 PM
Original message
Obama May Not Have Fully Contained Damage From Ex-Pastor
The Wall Street Journal

Obama May Not Have Fully Contained Damage From Ex-Pastor
By NICK TIMIRAOS
April 7, 2008; Page A4

Sen. Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech on race relations last month seemed to put the controversial remarks of his former pastor behind him. But three weeks later, there is evidence of lingering damage. "It has not been defused," says David Parker, a North Carolina Democratic Party official and unpledged superdelegate. He says his worries about Republicans questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism prompted him to raise the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.'s remarks in conversations with both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. "I'm concerned about seeing Willie Horton ads during the general election," Mr. Parker says, referring to campaign ads that Republicans widely credited for helping defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988. Mr. Parker said the Wright controversy didn't hurt his opinion of Mr. Obama.

National polls show the Illinois senator hasn't suffered among Democratic primary voters.. Sen. Hillary Clinton has argued that she can better withstand Republican attacks. One of her senior advisers last week told the Talking Points Memo blog that he had raised the Wright issue with superdelegates. The campaign didn't dispute the report. "ertainly, as you recall, it was very heavily in the news and people, you know, sometimes have it on their minds," Sen. Clinton told reporters last week. Recent polls suggest that, in key swing states, the New York senator fares better in head-to-head matchups with Republican nominee Sen. John McCain than does Sen. Obama. In Ohio, Sen. Clinton led Sen. McCain 48% to 39%, while Sen. Obama led Sen. McCain 43% to 42% in Quinnipiac University polls conducted in the last week of March.

In Pennsylvania, Sen. Clinton had a 48% to 40% lead against Sen. McCain while Sen. Obama was ahead 43% to 39%. The polls credit Sen. Clinton's advantage to her strength among white voters. No Democrat has won the presidency with a majority of white voters since 1964, and no president from either party has been elected without winning two of the three swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida since 1960. In those three states, some 23% of white Democrats would defect to Sen. McCain in a matchup with Sen. Obama, compared with 11% who would abandon Sen. Clinton, according to the Quinnipiac polls.

(snip)

The Obama campaign says the concerns are overblown and the party will rally around Sen. Obama if he wins the nomination, in part because Sen. Clinton will campaign for him. "Anybody who's intractably opposed to us now, they probably were never going to vote for us in the first place," says Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. The campaign has also contended that it can put into play traditionally Republican states like Colorado and Virginia, states Sen. Obama carried in the primaries with broad demographic support, and that it has a proven record of boosting turnout with new voters. While Republicans initially believed that Sen. Clinton would be an easier opponent, strategists say they worry less about facing Sen. Obama now. "It doesn't matter now. Either one of them could be beaten by John McCain at this point," says Rich Galen, a Republican strategist.

(snip)


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752539182393613.html (subscription)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-06-08 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wall Street Journal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
37. This isn't an editorial
WSJ leans right on the opinion pages but very down the middle in the news. But keep your head in the sand and think this issue is over. Rev Wright's worst abuses will be all over the TV in Oct/Nov - we probably shouldn't talk about it until then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-06-08 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wall Street Journal.
Edited on Sun Apr-06-08 11:53 PM by usregimechange
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
41. What a full and coherent response. Full of depth
and understanding.

NOT.

Sure, when you cannot contribute to the discussion, when you are incapable of debating the issues raised you dismiss the messenger. Good luck in carrying this approach in the general elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-06-08 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Got any Lou Dobbs quotes?
I hear you guys like to watch that racist too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-06-08 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Wall Street Urinal. Of course they're "concerned."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jalynn Donating Member (121 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-06-08 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. You Obama supporters
are unbelievable with your hate. You doubt "any" source that doesn't praise your candidate. Lou Dobbs is married to a hispanic, so how racist is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. And "you Clinton supporters" (I can paint with a broad brush, too)
are delighted to cite any right-wing source (and the WSJ qualifies as such), even crap like NewsMax and WorldNetDaily and the Drudge Report, as long as it is critical of Obama. And please show me where I have posted something "hateful," and also where I have accused Lou Dobbs of racism. Or did you intend to respond to a different post and slander someone else instead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. HE Called Condi Rice and Obama Cotton Pickers..and you wanna tell me he isnt racist?
Unless you can think off something else he was referring to when he stopped at cotton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. Cry me a river.
Fucking posts from WSJ and love for Lou Dobbs.

And I thought this was a progressive site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
44. Keep ignoring what the main stream media is saying
and the WSJ is one, and watch how John McCain is sailing to the White House.

I thought this was a site for open minded liberals - this is the definition of one, by the way, but it appears that freepers here are alive and well, seeing the world in black and white.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric Condon Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
25. Lemme guess, he has "black friends," too?
"Look at me, as you can see from my Hispanic wife, I am SO totally not a racist. Okay? Good. Now, I'm gonna go on my show and make crazy, racist, xenophobic remarks. But I'm not racist or anything." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
42. The WSJ is not "concerned." Why is it that any ability to comprehend
a simple story disappears when the perception is that American Idol is being challenged to appear a mere human?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-06-08 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. LOL...Wall Street Journal!!!
They are SOOOOO dead to the Obama camp! Dead. Done. L8TERZ!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Submariner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
7. Not a credible source. Part of Newscorp which employs white supremacist Hannity n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. Grow up. It's a fair analysis of the overall race.
It's foolish to interpret every article from a newspaper you don't care for as propaganda. I read the journal regularly and think their coverage of the election over the last year has been pretty decent. Doesn't mean I buy every article on their op-ed page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. If by fair you mean they mention BOTH Dems beat McCain
...in that PA poll.

Other than that, it's pretty much Murdoch-inspired spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #21
29. Somehow I'm guessing you've never worked as a journalist.
The journal hasn't changed very much since he took it over, in my view. But people here in the US seem to love their media conspiracy theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I haven't worked as an astronomer or a chef, either...
...but I can point out the Orion Nebula without a telescope and I make a mean curry.

The WSJ editorial staff is barely to the left of Mussolini. It's an untrustworthy source when it deals with progressive issues and individuals. If you consider the WSJ a newspaper of record while at the same time considering yourself a Dem, liberal, progressive or what have you, that's an interesting dichotomy to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
46. But, one hopes, you can distinguish between a boiled egg and a green salad
Like many newspapers, the WSJ has the editorial dept. and the news dept. and the two are separate.

And, don't worry, their editorial board really trashes Clinton just like... you guys do here.

Wonder whether they want Obama to be the one running against McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
38. The paper has the second highest circulation
of any US newspaper. You may not consider it credible - may disagree with you and perhaps it's a good idea to see what those people are reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anigbrowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. I'm fine with the Wall Street Journal. This is just normal analysis.
The writers would be doing a bad job if they didn't look at the big picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ampad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. Let's see
Still getting supers D's- Check
cutting into his opponents lead in PA- Check
Pulling ahead in National Polls-Check

Problems is?

Hillary cannot stop the flow of lies from her mount now can she? Must be a huge problem for rags such as the Wall Street Journal. Could never say I bothered to read the WSJ so for all y'all claiming the WSJ is dead to the Obama camp well it has always been dead to this Obama supporter. How many progressive blogs, commentators, websites and radio host are now dead to the Clinton supporters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
10. Pickles, mustard, ketchup, Wall Street Journal on a sesame seed bun, and hold the FUX Noise, please.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalAndProud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
11. Either one of them could be beaten by John McCain at this
point. So I'm taking this that they think Obama used to be more of a threat than Clinton, but not so much any more. I think they're whistling in the dark because the opposite is true. Either of our candidates will trounce McCain. Beat the cheat and all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. No way. Ross Perot or Hugh Hefner could beat McLame right now.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. Either of them could beat JM at this point.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Look at the electoral projections, based upon current polling. Either one only needs one more state, and we have the WH back. One more state!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
13. Sorry, but it is only acceptable to post right wing sources when they attack Clinton. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. No.
Please point out where this is occurring and I will register my displeasure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. Is That Something Like "I Strenuously Object?"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. It's something like
Edited on Mon Apr-07-08 08:29 AM by Spiffarino
..."WTF is this poster talking about?" It's something like, "I'm not buying this until I see some fucking evidence."

Edit: Where's Batboy? Crisco and Batboy are like peanut butter and jelly - inseparable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diane R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
18. And the Wall Street Journal isn't owned by Murdock, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Webster Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
19. Fishwrap..
Bird cage liner.:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. The WSJ is great
...for putting under my cat box. Very absorbent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
24. Please don't let it be over.
Please, please, please.

Every time they try to re-smear, that's another opportunity for press coverage over McLame.

Of course, the racist flag-waving morons will still be offended, but the chances of winning over flag-wavers are fairly rare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
26. Are we going to beat this dead horse into a liquid????
:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 01:45 AM
Response to Original message
27. I'm sure the Wall Street Journal is VERY concerned about the Democratic Party
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
48. What is it about DUers who lose the ability to read something above 4th grade level
when it comes to something that does not idolize Obama?

Read it again. The WSJ is not "concerned." Why should it? This is a news report, not an editorial.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
28. whistling in the dark
the Obama straw house

This is the best joke "the party will rally around Sen. Obama if he wins the nomination, in part because Sen. Clinton will campaign for him" his arrogance is showing...again.

So now he is going to depend on Clinton to bring him the white vote? :rofl:''

Delusional at best!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. All the white people I know are voting for him,
you almost racist crone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
31. Sign that a "flap" really is over: when media attempts to ressurect / keep story alive
after everyone else has stopped caring.

That's what this piece sounds like. It sounds like someone saying, "Hey dammit! We didn't get enough media fun with this, it can't be already over! What the hell am I going to op-ed about now??"

:)

Good sign when the Wall Street Journal tries to make a story where none exists. Obama is beating McCain, he is leading by largest margin ever against Clinton nationally. He's tied her in PA, something a month ago no one was saying he could possibly do there. He has demonstrated over and over again his amazing ability to persuade the votes to vote for him. You combine that with a deeply displeased electorate and a republican candidate with no economic plan and a stubborn committment to failed and unpopular war policy who is completely tied with the administration of the last eight years, and if the democrats lose it will be because we lost it for ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
33. Facts on the ground say otherwise.
Nice attempt at resurrection though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
35. It will be easy to swat the Repug flies that try to run Swift Horton ads
Yeah, there will be 527s using cheap shots on Obama. But guess what, there will be anti-McCain vets linked to the SBVFT contingent that will be attacking McCain's POW record too.

Add that Hagee and McCain yucking it up with what he believes in would put a lot on McCain's campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
36. Its time to stop regurgitating rightwing crap on this board.
The Clinton campaign is terminal, it is in zombie mode. Please consider stopping with the attacks on our party's nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democrattotheend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
39. This article is right. He's been hurt by Wright.
There's no way to argue that it hasn't cost him votes. But he has handled the controversy well and shown grace under fire and I think a lot of people who were on the fence might have decided to vote for him after his speech. But he has definitely lost some votes too, and we're naive if we think it won't hurt him in the general election. I think that he has weathered the storm and his support has not collapsed as I had initially feared, but it's going to cost him some votes in the general election. I still think he can win but it's going to be a little bit tougher because of this. But something was bound to happen to give people second thoughts...that is inevitable when you have a candidate with cross-party appeal, especially one who is not that well-known. Polls after the Wright controversy started to subside from the headlines shows that a lot of the support he lost came from Republicans, who probably would have found some reason not to vote for him anyway in the end. I hope that the same is true with McCain, that some of the Democrats who are thinking about voting for him will think twice after realizing that he will put anti-choice judges on the Supreme Court, continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq, and make even more of a mess of the economy. McCain is attractive to a lot of Democrats right now because people don't realize how conservative he really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alter Ego Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
40. It has not been defused....
...among a few select head cases who would not let it go even if Obama knelt before them and kissed their ring.

Fuck these people who are still harping on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
43. Yawn. Yet another Rupert Murdoch funded hatchet piece.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
45. Wall Street Journal...
...:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeffrey_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-07-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
49. the only damage was done to people who weren't going to vote for him in the first place
the only people being swayed by this are the ones influenced by the mass media and not by critical thinking.

That's fine with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC