I believe big egos are not encouraged in the Christian faith.....inflated egos block the path to enlightenment.

It must have been real late in the day because I saw something that said when given the chance she did not say anything on the wright issue earlier...

Absolutely...

Can anyone say -- sin of pride...

He was trying to damage Obama Amy. I haven't a single doubt about that. He is furious that Obama dared to disagree with him and remove him from his religious council with the campaign. He couldn't have been more deliberate about it. He said and did everything to reinforce the opinion that he is what he looked like. A Black racist. He's an intelligent man. He knew exactly what he was doing. That's why he made such outrageous statements .. i.e. I can be vice president .. twice. I think Bill Clinton got to him. and sympathized with Wright suggesting Obama "smeared him and threw him under the bus." Don't forget, he and the Clinton's were friends historically .

Obama's Christian soul is being tested by his former pastor. Certainly, I'm not the judge of such matters, but with this Wright business, I think Obama's soul is passing the test. Wright, on the other hand, in this case, I'm not so sure.

She refused to comment herself but she did criticize McCain for doing so, vehemently.

He can strongly disavow his preaching of division as that of a past era of black history... and that unification and reconciliation must continue and not be divided by such views of the past. He can paint Wright as out of touch with society... but relevant in his historical context and the past... that today is far different than yesterday... and that we cannot turn back the clock.

I believe most people, black and white would identify with that. He HAS to let people know that Wrights views on society do not reflect his.

I said in a previous post that I believe Wright will be pleased if his words help to bring Obama down, politically. Wrights "power" will then be affirmed.
The lure of the media spotlight is profound.....even for this pastor.

Hillary has to be praying that the Wright flap brings Obama down... it's the ONLY way that bringing him down would not be viewed as racial... and would not divide the Party.

Yep, that's what she's hoping for.

And if anyone thinks Bill Clinton isn't capable of engineering this for exactly that reason you simply aren't thinking. Wright has a massive ego ... Clinton would have had a fertile field to till.

Think it through .. Wright originally went into seclusion and even cancelled appearances which were scheduled. Suddenly he's a media star.

Quoting my own post from Graham's thread...


It certainly bears consideration. When things seem just a little too convenient as this whole thing does.... it smells fishy to me.

Is it just coincidence that Wright did not respond for a long while... and then, after he was off the radar, he's resurrected as the new "Jesus Wright" coming to save the world again. Who knows what is going on in that head... but who knows who is helping.

And... he's know the Clintons for years....

too late to add above..

as Snuff posted yesterday ..

It is time for the Republican controlled Media to give this Wright
controversy some fairness and inquire of Hillary Clinton and her
surrogates the following: Is it true that, Hillary surrogate,
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, is also a devotee of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah
Wright; that he's been preaching at her home church, where she is
actively involved, annually for the past 15 years and has an open
invitation to return, and, that she sat in the pews for his visits and
did not bat an eye?

Is it true that Hillary surrogate, Rev. Marcia Dyson was not only a
longtime member of Trinity United Church of Christ but also still
considers Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright her pastor? That Rev. Marcia Dyson's
seminary education, in part, was sponsored by Trinity UCC and encouraged
by Rev. Wright? And was it not at Trinity were she first met her
husband, Rev. Dr. Michael Dyson, who's been very vocal in his defense of
Rev. Wright.?

And, lastly of Hillary Clinton, that if Rev. Wright would not have been
her Pastor, then why did she and Bill when going through Impeachment,
turn to Rev. Wright for Prayer and Support and invite him to the White
House? These things should be asked and answered.

I thought you were suggesting the he completely disassociate hmself from Wright which is what I was suggesting he could not do.

Who knows.....the Clinton's would take advantage of any situation to promote Hillary's run.

He probably secluded himself until he figured out the best way to get back at Obama. A sly one he is....throwing Obama under the bus as he defends himself against attacks. Right up there with Rove and the Clintons, IMHO.

That's a fine line and would be difficult.. but he can come out and condemn the statements of Wright... and his views, and needs to do so mixing no words. It is time for a tough, strong statement.

It gives him an opportunity but I see it as a crucial necessity when he doesn't need erosion of support from white voters... which Wright could cause.

I am posting this here because of who the author is.

Our debt to Rev. Wright
April 29, 2008



In 1962, in connection with the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, the celebrated black writer, James Baldwin wrote a dedicatory letter to his nephew on how to survive and deal with living with white racism in America. It was published as an Essay in New York Magazine under the caption “The Fire Next Time”. Baldwin wrote:

A vast amount of energy that goes into what we call the Negro problem is produced by the white man’s profound desire not to be judged by those who are not white, not to be seen as he is, and at the same time a vast amount of the white anguish is rooted in the white man’s equally profound need to be seen as he is, to be released from the tyranny of his mirror.

My esteemed brother Dr. Cornell West writes about Baldwin’s “The Fire Next Time” saying that “(he) spoke the deep truth that democratic individuality demands that white Americans give up their deliberate ignorance and willful blindness about the weight of white supremacy in America. Only then can a genuine democratic community emerge in America.”

Not since James Baldwin’s famous quote from the Ralph Stanley Blues’ Hymn, “God gave Noah the rainbow sign, no more water but the fire next time” has America been so consumed in a national discussion about race.

The reappearance of Reverend Jeremiah Wright in the national media with an interview by Bill Moyers, a weekend speech in Detroit at an NAACP conference of some 10,000 and his recent speech at the National Press Club opening a two day theology and Church meeting in Washington, DC, has reignited this discussion and its impact on the presidential campaign of Senator Obama.

To some, the “political” consequences of Rev. Wright’s comments on Obama have been the principal, if not their exclusive, concern. Some persons, like Eric Deggans, in an article earlier today in the Huffington Post, said it would be the “the race-based bullet” coming from the “friendly fire” of Rev. Wright that could prevent Senator Obama from winning the Democratic nomination.

Aside from whether or not Democratic primary voters believe Senator Obama can effectively address their day-to-day concerns with high gas prices, rising foreclosures, absence of affordable health insurance and ending the war in Iraq, the underlying issue, uncomfortably presented by Rev. Wright, is the reality of race relations in America.

“Perhaps the most pervasive theme in our history is the domination of black America by white America. Race is the sharpest and deepest division in American life….

“Almost no genre of popular culture goes untouched by race.”

“Black-white relations became the central issue in the Civil War…was the principal focus of Reconstruction after the Civil War; America’s failure to allow African American equal rights led eventually to the struggle for civil rights a century later.”(Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Lowen)

Race relations in American is the 800-pound gorilla in our national living room that most politicians have been unwilling or too afraid to acknowledge or discuss.

The media and political pundits reaction to the remarks of Rev. Wright is an unambiguous reminder that white America remains seriously afflicted with amnesia with respect to its treatment of African Americans throughout most of our history.

Rather than condemning Rev. Wright I commend him for refocusing the issue of race in America within a more relevant contemporary framework: A conference on the role of the Church in America, its organization, community work and its theology. The Church and its companion teaching of the gospel of Christianity was the centerpiece of leadership provided by Martin Luther King, Jr. It was Dr. King’s abiding faith in the ultimate decency and fairness of most of white America that enabled him to build a successful coalition for the elimination of institutional segregation and the most egregious forms of white supremacy and racism in the United States.

It may be that America will look back at this election and conclude that we owe a great debt to Rev. Wright. However painful the rebirth and perfection of a new 21st-century America may seem now, ultimately he may be the unheralded, indeed unpopular, “hero” who enabled us to reembark on a new journey of recovery for social justice, initiated earlier by Dr. King, the greatest moral leader in our country in the 20th century.

The millions of white people who have voted for Senator Obama in the democratic primaries may be telling us something that we are unable to “hear” and understand. They just might be saying, in spite of all of the negative media and a political pundits, the time has come when they want to finally cross over the bridge to a new 21st century based on a color/race-irrelevant and multiracial society.

Clarence B. Jones is a former lawyer and draft speechwriter for Martin Luther King, Jr and author of [i]What Would Martin Say?, published by Harper Collins. Currently he is a Scholar in Residence/Visiting Professor at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research & Education Institute at Stanford University.[/i]

Since the media is going to fire away at Obama regarding Wright, i.e. the promo spot for Hardball today says "Fallout From the Wright etc...: I decided to e-mail TUCC since there is an address on their website. Here is what I sent:

Sir: As a supporter of Barack Obama, I ask that you confer with your church heirarchy and advise Rev. Wright that he has supplied enough raw material from his NAACP and National Press Club speeches for the mainstream media to weaponize themselves sufficiently to defeat Obama's bid for the Presidency of the United States. Does he understand this?

The best opportunity in decades for race relations to take a giant leap for mankind has been scuttled by one of your own.


What can be done? Black churches should unite and present the spectrum of theology practiced and not let the singular interpretations of one, speak for what I am sure is a many colored coat of belief practices. I fear it is too late to remedy the damages done by Reverend Wright, and frankly I am surprised that a man with his educational background and wide experiences is so naive about what the MSM would do with his presentations.


He owes a public apology to the Obama family and the newer generations of African Americans.

With true sincerity.



########


lenal

In fairness to Hillary it seems like we may be seeing a little of the "Good Hillary" breaking through. She has condemned the NC Republican Party ad attacking two Democratic candidates for governor there (both have endorsed Obama) for being associated with Obama because of the Wright thing for "politicizing" the matter.

Of course some of you who are less charitable than I may scoff and suggest that she is playing a double game here, and I don't know if I will have a good answer to that.

Eloquent and to the point, lenal. Wow.

Do you think Wright is the only person willing to sell him? If he isn't Obama can't afford the flood that will follow if he doesn't show the price is high.

That's one way a leader can't be a nice guy, he has to show he has the cajones or he's finished, people will assume he'll sell them if he allows himself to be sold.

I scoff and say she is playing a double game with this issue....self-serving, as usual. She might be genuine with this but looking at her past behavior.....nah, I don't trust her.

On the limited issue of divisiveness he could restate what he said in Philly but he cannot condemn any more than he already has...and he will not.

I agree.

She;s being the Mccain on the issue because when he went against the NC party she looked real bad...

She wants it both ways knowing the Rs will help her in NC and IN

She is.

You are too quick to make excuses Arne in your efforts to be completely fair and balanced. And many times you are absolutely correct. This isn't one of those times. Its CLINTON'S we are talking about here. EVERYTHING they do has a personal political component to it and they stop at nothing. Ohio .. NAFTA ( and she was more culpable in that case than Obama btw .. and I am in a position to know that for a fact ... I live here.. know several of the politicos involved.. and I know the sequence of events and the credibility of those involved with the ploy). PA -- capitalizing on the bitter comment goof ... admittedly Obama's mistake but she turned it into a huge issue.

And now Indiana and North Carolina .. her waterloo ... Wright appears on the public stage. Its just too convenient and timely.

The only way I owuld accept her actions as true would be if they followed a public apology for her recent behavior in PA...and even then?

Lenal, I agree with Amy. Outstanding letter !

You are quite charitable Arne...

One other thing Arne.. forget awarding a good conduct medal to Hillary regarding the McCain Wright attack .. when her campaign was asked for comment when McCain did his grandstand play and objected to the ad running .. there was NO comment from the Clinton camp when it was solicited. She was mute. And she remained mute.

Now that the weapon has been unleashed and Wright is all over the news again and isn't going away and she knows it she plays the heroine. Give me a break.

Here we are again... just ahead of another possible put-away and a savior for Hillary comes along. If this flap dominates the news between now and next Tuesday, he'll lose IN and another shot at ending it all. Strong wins in both could stop Hillary... but, imho, his only shot is to take control of the message by hitting Wright's views hard. Better to absorb a little "political expediency" criticism and appear strong and in command, than to ignore it and hope it goes away while appearing weak.

Today's Gallup

Gallup Daily: Clinton 47%, Obama 46%

Democratic preferences remain very close

PRINCETON, NJ -- Democrats at the national level remain very closely divided in their preferences for their party's presidential nomination, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update showing 47% favoring Hillary Clinton and 46% supporting Barack Obama.


This marks the fifth consecutive Gallup Poll Daily tracking report in which the two Democratic candidates have been within a point of one another, as well as one of the few times in recent months in which the race has stabilized at the break-even point for more than a day or two. From a broad perspective, this situation marks a loss for Obama, who has generally been in the lead over Clinton for the last month. At the same time, Clinton -- coming off of her victory in the Pennsylvania primary, and almost certainly benefiting from the news media focus on controversies surrounding Obama -- has been unable to move into a significant lead. The next scheduled events that have the potential to shake up the race will be the North Carolina and Indiana primaries to be held one week from today. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

There have been minor changes in the shape of the national registered voter preferences for the fall, with John McCain now leading Obama by a slim two percentage point margin, while Clinton has a slight 2-point margin over McCain. -- Frank Newport

"Humility for justice over race and politics," is a fruit salad of mixed metaphors which could be a very potent and meaningfull message if the listeners personal construct systems were similarly
formatted, or if I understood the translation code. Who has the, "Question" and what kind of "Information" is needed to answer this, "Question"? that is so frequently and creatively raised by the Clinton Campaign's Small but vicious political attack, special forces, of personal destruction, in a half-a$$ed system of deniability, with such vigor, from inside the the racial-socio-economic-cultural Mainstream? Military jargon is no worse than psycho-bable jargon, educational jargon or computer jock jargon.

The main point that both Obama and Wright are trying to make is that different does not mean deficient. Some of the Media are probably about to get sued for damages to Rev. Dr, Wright's
Reputation. They probably don't think they can afford to acknowledge their error.

I think that's a crock. I think neither Barack Obama or Rev. Dr. Wright are in the least surprized by what the other has said and done. They just don't take it all as serious as most white folks tend to.
Rev. Wright will do what he thinks he has to and so will Senator Obama. If they both end up eating
Sunday dinner at the same place, they will enjoy each other's company. You see, the case claimed
against Rev. Wright with the doctored video tape has no real substance--as is gradually becomming known.

Have You Left No Sense Of Decency?

Posted April 29, 2008 | 03:29 PM (EST)


If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been
about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities
of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be
staring into the maw of another depression.

If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear
program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of
attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.

So what is the very serious corporate media, the only industry that is explicitly protected by the
Constitution, doing to remedy their failures of the recent past? Rather than watchdogging the Bush
administration and Senator McCain on Iraq, Iran, the economy and all the rest of it -- areas in which
Senator McCain is laughably wrong and dangerously inconsistent -- what are we seeing instead?

All three major cable news networks are wasting valuable air time on Senator Obama's former
pastor. Why? Is the story newsworthy? Sure. Is wall-to-wall Wright coverage more important than
Iraq or gas prices or the climate crisis? No way. But Reverend Wright is a scary, shouting black man
and scary shouting black men equal ratings-sweet-ratings.

We expect to see this sort of race-baiting behavior from Fox News Channel, but CNN and MSNBC
have, once again, similarly crossed the tabloid threshold into the very same nefarious Roger Ailes
realm by beating this nothing story to death.

MSNBC, for example, continues to invite Pat Buchanan onto their air -- a known race-baiter and
author of a recent article in which he claims that, despite 300 years of slavery, America has been the
best nation ever for black people (food stamps, for example). The article, by the way, totally ignores
the reality that, had it not been for slavery and Jim Crow laws, Africans could very easily have
immigrated to America as free people and enjoyed the benefits of our constitutional liberties; but the
article also lords welfare and food stamps over the heads of African Americans -- as if Buchanan
ever once supported such measures in the first place.

Yet Buchanan gets thawed out of his cryo-freeze chamber every time there's some race-baiting to be
done. Of the thousands of Republicans at their disposal as a means of balancing out the brilliant
Rachel and the equally brilliant Keith, MSNBC chooses the one Republican who's known as much
for his racism as he is for his high pitch voice. This leads me to believe that MSNBC is knowingly
stoking the racial fires of the Wright story, simply because they continue to invite Buchanan to speak
for the angry white men who think they're God's gift to black people (food stamps, for example).

The reality is that only one of the candidates is being attacked for their connections when, in fact, all
three candidates have controversial and embarrassing relationships. The difference, as near as I can
tell, is that only one candidate has an angry, shouting black connection. And -- bonus! -- there's
videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks
of September 11!

Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has
claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11
attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens
have come home to roost"?



That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their
own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who
ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?

"I think it's all up for grabs, and I don't think that anyone's emerging. I think these people who are
racing to declare anyone the true frontrunner at this point -- I just don't see it. Although I am partial to
Ron Paul..." --Laura Ingraham
"That's music to my ears, Laura." --Tucker Carlson responding to Ingraham's praise
"I like him personally, I know him personally... I will say that he is also the one candidate that
everybody knows who fought against big government. He voted against unsure Medicare, the
prescription drugs, and No Child Left Behind. He's consistent, he's courageous." --Pat Buchanan
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air
Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need
to keep him fighting for our country." --Ronald Reagan
"[Ron Paul] is the only candidate out there that's talking like a lot of us talked in 94. And that's what
a lot of Americans want but no one will say anything anymore...I bet he's gonna shock a lot of people
in New Hampshire." --Joe Scarborough
"He's a very engaging person... I'd like to see him as president."
"I think I'm fondest of Ron Paul... He's the only person I agree with on foreign policy."

"Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) continues to amaze on many levels, and he had finally started to register on
the polls. In last Tuesday's Midwestern ice storm, almost every Iowa event was cancelled. The
exception was a Paul rally, which drew hundreds. His crowds are regularly huge and enthusiastic.
He chalked up another record fundraising day on Sunday's anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, with
more than $6 million in online donations in a single day." --Bob Novak


"The most honest man in Congress." --Senator John McCain
With the exception of President Reagan of course, I expect all of these Republicans politicians and
pundits will step forward and declare their intentions to sever all ties to Congressman Paul, and to
subsequently retract all praise for the Congressman.

How about it, Joe Scarborough? Does Ron Paul really talk like you used to talk? And would you, Pat
Buchanan, define blaming America for September 11 as "courageous." And do you still support Ron
Paul, Tucker? If Ron Paul is the most honest man in Congress, Senator McCain, does that mean he's
telling the truth about September 11?

Naturally, the difference here is that Congressman Paul is a white Republican, and Reverend Wright
is crazy shouting black pastor. Many (too many) white Americans fear angry black people, even
though, given the historical record, we all ought to fear old, white, powerful Republicans a little
more than we do right now.

What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has
endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that
statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a
controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a
stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with
Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again?
Of course not.

In addition to Hagee's awful remarks about New Orleans, the networks, by-in-large, skimmed past
the news that this month has been the deadliest month in Iraq since September 2007. The networks
continue to ignore the root causes of the current recession and Senator McCain's promise to continue
the Reaganomics of the current administration. The networks all but ignored Senator Clinton's
promise to "obliterate" Iran with nuclear weapons, even though hundreds of thousands of Iranian
people, who held pro-American vigils after September 11, favor government reforms and
disapprove of Ahmadinejad.

So I have to ask the appropriate network executives the familiar yet appropriate question: Have you
no sense of decency at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

The constant, around-the-clock coverage has become a race-baiting spectacle far beyond the realms
of journalistic decency, honor and integrity, especially given the slag heap through which most
Americans are marching right now -- a march which truly deserves wall-to-wall news coverage.
And if the cable news networks can't help but to prioritize their headlines with the same twisted fury
as far-right talk show hosts or racist Republican strategists like Floyd Brown or Alex Castellanos,
it's clear that the answer to that famous question is a resounding "nope."

UPDATE: Will Senator Clinton be asked to repudiate Governor Easley's use of an anti-gay epithet?
After all, Senator Clinton thought it was funny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/ha...of_b_99244.html

Does, "big ego" mean the same as erroneous Self-assement?

And I think you are dead wrong RLA.

Its one thing to see a video of selected soundbites and feel they are out of line but not to condemn the pastor because it was sound bites unfairly assembled for political reasons..

Yesterday Wright gave a three act performance filled with self promoting rhetoric, outrageous statements repeating and elaborating on those sound bites, and throwing Obama under the bus as well... It will be a cold day in hell before those two break bread together again.

Obama didn't react after Moyer , he didn't react after the NAACP . He said the man had a right to free speech. The Press Club was a whole different ball of wax . IT was outrageous and Wright looked and sounded like an egomaniac who cared about nothing but Wright and destroying Obama's campaign.

That's it....you know what she's all about, CO.

Hillary is the female Eddie Haskell (who actually looked like Terry McAuliffe).

Well, more like "lack of humility".

So now we have Scowcroft and Baker and likey GHWB --- and Reagan who all advocate or have talked to our enemies...

Who is more the foreign policy realists --- the Obama camp who take this point of view or the McCain, Bush and Clinton camps who do not...

We can likely lump Jimmy Carter in this camp as well...with his talking to Hamas.

The others would rather rattle sabres than get things done.

Leadership is about acting and doing not just talking --- Obama is ready to do --- the status quo has not worked for NK and Iran --- do we want Iran to go nuclear --- the Bush policy did not work with NK --- if we adhere to it for another 8 years under McCain and Clinton Iran will likely have nuclear weapons...

We need to guarantee Iran's security if they are willing to give up their ambitions...

Obama backer predicts victory in Hill war
By AMIE PARNES & JOSEPHINE HEARN | 4/30/08 4:31 AM EST Text Size:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9968.html


Capitol Hill insiders say the battle for congressional superdelegates is over, and one Senate supporter of Barack Obama is hinting strongly that he has prevailed over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While more than 80 Democrats in the House and Senate have yet to state their preferences in the race for the Democratic nomination, sources said Tuesday that most of them have already made up their minds and have told the campaigns where they stand.

“The majority of superdelegates I’ve talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “They’re just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day.”

Obama currently holds an 18-13 lead among committed superdelegates in the Senate, while Clinton holds a 77-74 lead in the House. Asked which way the committed-but-unannounced superdelegates are leaning, McCaskill — who has endorsed Obama — said: “James Brown would say, ‘I Feel Good.’”

I Feel Good !!!

I posted this as a topic yesterday... and no suprise... there was no response. In light of the Wright flap, it sank quickly, but it is a very valid point that I believe the Obama campaign should be making strongly...

One must be separately equal to integrate into the whole. From Senator's Obama's
perspective, he has two crazy old Uncles to deal with in the US and one in Iran. From
Rev. Dr. Wright's perspective, he is carrying out the same Christian Mission he was
callrying out last year and the year before that. Things look different when viewed
on the World Wide Eletronic Psychodrama Stage. Like Soap Operas have real life drama--
it is just much more compacted in time and space.

Interesting perspective, rla, and I agree with you. I completely understand why Obama has handled the controversy over Wright the way he has. If I had been in Obama's shoes I would have handled it the same way. Obama, running for the presidency, has to respond to the controversy while at the same time he hasn't wanted to severely castigate Wright and he doesn't want to sell his soul for the sake of this election. But, Wright finally put Obama in a situation where he had to come out strongly against him and I'm glad he did. Other than the obvious reasons I support Obama (I like his policies and in particular his approach to foreign policy and I trust his judgement) I really like that he shows himself to be human.....and he's not willing to sell his soul for a vote.

As you say, Wright is who he is and he doesn't understand why Obama would not agree with the outlandish things he has said. Wright is certainly an intelligent man, so I see his big ego preventing him from examining an issue from a side other than his own. Obama is able to, that's why he didn't toss Wright overboard sooner than he did. I wonder, given his age, if Wright is a bit senile...nastiness can go along with senility.

Delegate Update: Obama 2, Clinton 1Posted: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:23 AM

by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Democrats, 2008, Delegates
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro

A small wave of superdelegate endorsements this morning. We mentioned Rep. Bruce Braley (IA) in First Thoughts for Obama. In addition, Obama picked
up the endorsement of congressman Baron Hill. Clinton also picked up one -- Pennsylvania AFL-CIO president Bill George.

Hill represents Indiana's hotly contested ninth congressional district. Hill is a former Indiana high school basketball star who is in the Indiana Basketball
Hall of Fame, alongside NBA legend Larry Bird.

Here's how the numbers shake out:
SUPERDELEGATES: Clinton 267, Obama 246 ( uncommitted)
PLEDGED: Obama 1,490-1,334
OVERALL: Obama 1,735-1,600

Since Pennsylvania, it's Obama 9-5 in superdelegates.
Here's how those break out:
CLINTON (5): Bill George (PA DNC), Rep. Ike Skelton (MO), Gov. Mike Easley (NC), Kathy Sullivan (NH add on), Rep. John Tanner (TN).

OBAMA (9): Rep. Baron Hill (IN), Rep. Bruce Braley (IA), Rep. Ben Chandler (KY), Richard Machacek (IA), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (NM), Charlene
Fernandez (AZ DNC), Rep. David Wu (OR), Audra Ostergard (NE DNC), Gov. Brad Henry (OK).


Obama will be on Meet the Press for the full hour this Sunday. Tim Russert will travel to Indianapolis to sit down with the Democratic front-runner for the
live interview, taking place on the even of what could be the most significant primaries of the campaign season

Even a 50/50 split does her no good.

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Posted on Wed, Apr. 30, 2008

Clinton blasts Bush for not stopping a project her husband approved

Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: April 30, 2008 11:06:48 AM

INDIANAPOLIS — It's a story Hillary Clinton loves to tell, about how the Chinese government bought a good American company in Indiana, laid off all its workers and moved its critical defense technology work to China.

And it's a story with a dramatic, political ending. Republican President George W. Bush could have stopped it, but didn't.

If she were president, she says, she'd fight to protect those jobs. It's just the kind of talk that's helping her win support form working-class Democrats worried about jobs and paychecks, not to mention their country's security.

What Clinton never tells in the oft-repeated tale is the role prominent Democrats played in selling the company and its technology to the Chinese. She never mentions that big-time Democratic contributor George Soros helped put together the deal to sell the company, or that the sale was approved by the administration of her husband. "Hillary Clinton must have been hoping we Hoosiers have short memories," Ed Dixon of Valparaiso said in a letter to a local newspaper after a recent Clinton visit. "Her husband was president at the time and allowed this to happen."

"They would have us believe Bush was behind this sale," added Fred Sliger of Valparaiso in another letter, "when in fact the Clinton administration rubber-stamped this along with the sale of numerous other high-tech secrets to the Chinese. …Let's get the facts straight."

Here's how Clinton tells it in a recent television ad she aired in Indiana.

"Right here, over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military's smart bombs to their targets," the New York senator says.

"They were good jobs, but now, they're gone to China. And now America's defense relies on Chinese spare parts. George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't. As your president, I will fight to keep good jobs here, and to turn this economy around. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message because American workers should build America's defense."

Here's how she told it a few weeks ago at a union meeting in Washington.

"A Chinese company bought the company, called Magnequench, and they wanted to move the jobs to China. The people in Indiana protested, did everything they could to convince the Bush administration that this was a terrible mistake. Couldn't even get a hearing," she said.

"The jobs went to China, but so did the technology. And now the United States military has to buy the magnets we need for the smart bombs we invented from China," she said as the union members booed.

Here's the complete story.

In 1995, General Motors decided to sell the Indiana-based Magnequench to a Chinese-American consortium. The consortium included:

San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co, a company owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
Onfem Holdings, a company controlled by the State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration in the Peoples Republic of China;
Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros;
The Sextant Group, founded by Archibald Cox Jr.;
Soros, of course, is the wealthy investor who has contributed vast sums to Democratic candidates and liberal causes.

He's given more than $250,000 to Democratic campaign committees, tens of thousands to individual Democratic candidates, and about $2.5 million to the liberal group, Moveon.org, according to Federal Election Commission records.

He's also contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and to Obama's Senate and presidential campaigns. He contributed to Republican Sen. John McCain's first presidential campaign, in 1999, when he was running against Bush for the Republican nomination.

Because Magnequench made magnets for smart bombs, the sale to a group including foreign owners required approval under a 1988 law.

After a 30-day review, the Clinton administration's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes representatives of the Pentagon, approved the sale in 1995.

The buyers reportedly promised to keep manufacturing in the United States.

Yet in 1998, they started building a new plant in China, close to the source of the raw materials used in the magnets.

The company reorganized in 1999, buying out Soros as well as Onfem Holdings.

In 2000, Magnequench bought a magnet factory in Valparaiso, Indiana, the same year it started operations at its China plant.
In 2001, it closed its original plant in Anderson, Indiana.

And in 2003, it decided to close the Valparaiso plant, laying off its 225 workers.

Indiana politicians asked the Bush administration to intervene.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., said the move would leave the United States without a significant domestic source of rare-earth magnets used in smart bombs. The Valparaiso plant made about 80 percent of the magnets bought by the Pentagon, they said.

The administration did not block the move.

The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Trying to burden Clinton with Soros is a losing proposition since he's supporting Obama.