if Russert mentions Wright, then Obama should walk off the set

While this would probably not be a smart move, it sure would feel good

Sorry, but it seems like the whole freaking interview is about Reverend Wright.  What is going on!  This is awful!

to call out the media for constantly raising these bullshit distractions. He needs to implement some kind of rule and have some canned answers for when this crap gets raised. It'll never end, otherwise.

He erred big-time by 1) going on Fox, and especially 2) saying that discussion of these issues was legitimate. These are definitely N0T legitimate issues, not with so many real problems facing this country. The establishment media is not popular -- he should call them out every chance he gets.  

Here is an article that exemplifies everything that is wrong with our politics in general and the establishment media in particular. This was a front-page story in the Post today.

Horrible.

Russert stops beating around the bush and just asks Barack, "Senator, why do you hate America?"

This is what it seems like the establishment media hacks have been leading up to, so, why not?

Actually, I hope Barack tears him a new one if any of the lapel pin/madrassa/Wright/religion nonsense is even brought up. Bring it back to the issues, the real issues, please. But I'm not so deluded that that's what I think will actually happen.

"Look I denounced Mr. Wright and what he said, what more do you want me to say? And for those who said I waited too long I ask do you agree with everything your minister or spiritual person says? Sometimes you just keep some things that you disagree with other people on to yourself cause, it's impossible to agree with people on everything. It's obvious that Mr. Wright went over and I repudiated it. I think people realize that I am not crazy enough to believe some of the things Mr. Wright said. Now lets move on and talk about the issues."

flag pins, the pledge of allegiance, Rev. Wright, and whether he's a Muslim.  If one issue, such as flag pins, comes up, he should chuckle and then reply "I thought we were going to talk about substantive things like the economy and the war and gas prices, but since we're stuck on the same subjects every time I talk to the press here are my answers to flag pins, the pledge of allegiance, Rev. Wright, and whether I'm a Muslim."  He should then run through a list of quick responses, possibly ticking them off his fingers one by one, say something snarky like "I've prepared a written list of answers since I've heard these questions so often before.  Shall I give you a copy?"  

I don't think you want to go there.  Where was Hillary's judgment of character with her husband, Mr. Can't Keep It In His Pants?  By your standard, if someone you know and trust and have a long association with lets you down it's your duty to toss him overboard and wash your hands of him.  Where was her judgment with all those little scandals back in Arkansas?  Where was it during Travelgate and when all those FBI files turned up among her effects?  Where was it when she accepted money from that Chinese guy?  How about that pastor whose support she has so gladly accepted (name escapes me, the guy who's said nice things about Hitler)?  Actually, where was her judgment when she and Bill welcomed Rev. Wright to the White House and they supported his efforts in Chicago?  How about her judgment on the war, on the flag burning amendment, on the bankruptcy bill, on torture, on FISA?  She talks a LOT about her great judgment, but when you look at her record you don't see it.  She voted for a bankruptcy bill but said she really hoped it would fail?  She declared war on other people who wanted health care reform way back when Bill got into the White House and burned all her bridges with them and then was surprised that she failed?

You want someone who can talk to Ahmadinejad?  Well, there's Hillary, rattling her saber when no one else is even being threatened, and talking about total obliteration of Iran.  That should go over very well with Ahmadinejad when they meet, huh?  How about Hu Jintao?  Well, I think someone who ISN'T as beholden to Chinese interests as Hillary might do a better job.  Vladimir Putin?  Let's see, wasn't Bill recently in Kazakhstan working out some sort of deal there?  Hmm, wonder how that's going to play in discussions with the ever scheming and manipulative Vlad.  Think Bill should be included in the discussions?  Musharaff?  He's stuck in a bad political position right now, quite a bit of it his own fault for being an oppressive, authoritarian SOB who's tried to gut his country's constitutional form of government.  I think we'd do better with someone who understands the intricacies of constitutional law and is culturally sensitive.  Oops, sounds like Obama's a better choice on that one.  

As for the Reverend Wright thing, that issue has been played out ad nauseum, and people like you like to pretend they know what was said every Sunday, when people who were actually there say almost all the sermons they heard had to do with the Scriptures and with outreach to others and with the Christian obligation to take care of the least among us.   If there were so many inflammatory sermons over thirty years, and those sermons are apparently all available on tape, how come we keep hearing the same two minutes worth of them?  If it was every Sunday where's the proof?  And when did Wright call for God to damn the U.S.?  That ISN'T what was said, which YOU should know if you've actually listened to that entire portion of the sermon.  I heard the WHOLE clip on Beck last night, although Beck's such a numbskull he thought it was a BAD clip, and what Wright was talking about was God's condemnation of those who kill innocents.  He led up to it referencing the indisputable shame of some of this country's actions - the oppression of the Indians, the enslavement of Africans, Jim Crow laws, the Tuskegee Experiment, etc. - and his historical account was right on the money.  He may be wrong about this country promoting drugs and AIDS, but he's completely accurate in talking about some of our other many sins.  And when did being a conspiracy nut qualify as bad character?  Does Wright steal, hurt, bamboozle, manipulate, or gossip about people?  Did he cheat on his wife, rip-off a business partner, take revenge on an enemy, advocate destruction of others' property, or counsel hurting others?  Not even his worst enemy has accused him of such things.  He's sincere in his beliefs and in his performance of what he deems to be his religious obligations.  He may be obnoxious, off-putting, somewhat narcissistic, and impervious to the destructive effect of his more eccentric actions, but how does that make him a person of bad character?    

Here's a request... take every issue in which you invoked Senator Clinton's name, and replace it with John McCain's. Hillary is small beans compared to the Bush-lite presidency we would receive under Senator McCain. Is the reasoning I set forth still effectively parried? The Democratic Party's fight is not between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is between our nominee and John McCain. The media has already indicated a lack of willingness to attack McCain's faith advisors.

My comment was an exercise in expressing the opinion, and the talking point, Republicans will toss at Barack during the general election. They will do their best to caricature him, and if Senator Obama runs a campaign with one of its central tenets as judgment, they will look for ways to turn it against him.

I don't believe Jeremiah Wright is a bad man. He's deeply religious and occasionally eccentric, but mostly harmless and occasionally makes very hard-hitting yet strong points.
I've watched the full video of his sermons Catz, but doubt that many of the independent voters who decide this election come November will be able to say the same thing.

The issue won't go away until Senator Obama finds a way to make it. Barack hasn't done that so far, and in that respect, it's a legitimate (albeit painfully tertiary) issue in the run for the White House which I would not fault Tim Russert for asking about.

Finally, the rationale I outlined is part of the reason Obama's "distractions" argument is failing to change the story of the day.

YOU were the one who suggested that Obama's association with Wright somehow makes him a poor judge of character and you suggested it's legitimate for HRC to go after him on this issue.

As for the Republicans using the same argument, then let them use it when the time comes.  McCain hasn't shown any desire to use the judgment argument, and if he does he's got exposure and he knows it.  You seem to be arguing that it's legitimate for the media to continue asking Obama about this over and over, even though he has answered quite clearly several times.  When a witness has answered a question and the question keeps getting asked, it's called badgering the witness.  This isn't about eliciting new information, but about keeping the issue out there for the purpose of stirring up controversy.  It's not a legitimate issue, if it every was, any longer.  

let me chime in here for the Hillary supporters, who seem to have taken that long hike to other blogs.

Where are your specifics?  You're just an irrational Hillary hater.  Obama promised a new kind of politics.  Shame on you, Obama supporter, repeating right wing talking points.  You must be a far left elitist, or mentally ill.

You're clearly a self-loathing female lawyer.  All real female lawyers instinctively understand they are DNA-bound to vote for Hillary.  It's right there on the back of your bar card.  What's wrong with you?  No wonder Obama is losing so badly.  He just can't close the deal.  He's unelectable.

Hillary has experience.  Sure, it's mostly Bill's experience (except for the bad stuff).  He was our First Black President.  Hillary has been fully vetted.  She won't have to answer for any of her associations or actions.  Or  Bill's either.  The Republicans will swiftboat our candidate.  Obama's a lightweight.  He's not up to it.

Hillary is the values candidate.  She went to church on Easter.  No crazy pastors for her.  Bill Richardson is Judas.  Jeremiah Wright is the first Christian preacher ever to say America's going to hell.  Obama must reject, renounce, deject, and flounce him.  And walk out of church, with his little children in tow.

Hillary is against the Iraq war.  It's Bush's fault she voted for it.  Obama just made one speech.  She was for universal health care.  Not her fault it got killed.  That won't happen again.  She was against NAFTA.  She'll be awake at 3 a.m., in a business suit and pearls, with make-up on.  For God's sake, she took on sniper fire, and here you are, supporting an unpatriotic, America-hating black extremist Muslim with the middle name HUSSEIN.  Did I mention that Obama's black?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

as in "so-and-so has a preacher with some crazy ideas.  Even though there is no evidence in so-and-so's background that he harbors those ideas and acts on them; I think his preacher's views should still disqualify him from being president."

That's "guilt by association".  

Obama probably saw Rev. Wright once or twice a week.  Their personal exchanges probably went something like: "Good to see you Rev. How's the wife?  Good glad to hear it, fine sermon, very inspiring, see you next Sunday; God Bless."  I'm sure the good Rev. was invited over for dinner.  Wright and Obama probably talked about topics on occasion too.

Yet we should be REALLY concerned about Obama's character judgment?

Maybe we SHOULD be concerned about his POLITICAL judgment and his skin color and funny name -- because clearly there is a new, substantially lower standard at work here.  

But as Catzmaw says -- if you want to compare Obama's "character" judgment to the Clintons -- I KNOW we don't want to go there.

The thing that concerns me the most though is POLICY JUDGMENT.  

Once silly season is over, that's what matters the most in real people's lives.  Not all of this B.S. about what someone's preacher once said after 9/11.

I would say:

If after 8 years of fear-mongering and manipulation, the American voting public cannot see someone like Obama accurately (i.e. as anything but a "scary enemy") -- then America is indeed damned.

This is no time to stay the course.    

This election strikes me as much more a referendum on American Democracy and ordinary voters than it is on the candidates who are running.

e.g. Is the American public so blinded by fear and prejudice that it cannot recognize the opportunity that is in front of it?  Will the American public fall for the same old politics, or will it take a step forward into the next century?

That's the challenge that we have.

is really the crux of what this is all about.

The electorate gets what they deserve.  2000 was one thing, but 2004 was unforgivable.

And now, as unbelievable as it may seem, given everything that's happened in the last 8 years, the 2008 race is essentially a three way tie.  Yes, the polls may change if and when it's a two way race.  But given the superficial nonsense that many of our fellow citizens are responding to, it's hard to be hopeful for the future of this country.

yet.  Even after 8 years of B.S. that we're STILL seeing in this election.

Agreed, that the learning curve has not been steep enough.  

I don't agree with the reasoning, but I don't think this one merits a troll rate.  

These views are sincerely held by many -- and I think it's worth actually debating the substance of the argument.

because of the sentence dealing with the children. Had that sentence not been there, I would merely have ignored these inane ramblings. But the children comment alone makes that whole rant trollish. There's no arguing with people that are willing to believe this tripe, imo.

Just thought it merited an answer, as it's a fair question.  

That line was one that I'd glossed over.  It's an interesting "concern" (e.g. it works from the assumption that someone who has never attended a service at U.C.C. REALLY knows what went on during the service; that the person REALLY knows what the relationship between pastor and parishioner was; and that the impact of the church was fundamental in the kids development.  In Iowa those kids look pretty damn well adjusted.)

that was a more questionable line. I kept deleting it, then putting it back in, then ultimately leaving it in. Looking back, it probably would have been better to leave out the kids.

The point of the comment was to start a discussion about how we can combat this rationale, and perhaps I went over the top in doing it. I don't actually hold the view, but I'd be lying if I said some cousins and close friends haven't used a variation on this guilt by association to justify not supporting Senator Obama.

How can he move past this completely before November? I think bladerunner has a good start with the third comment on this article.

the odd thing was, I'm on yours and Catzmaw's side on this one.

Do I think it's utterly pathetic and hypocritical that Obama's character judgment is being called out by Clinton supporters, given the Clinton track record? Yes.

Do I think it's at least partly hypocritical for Barack to make light of his own weak judgment in this circumstance, and be running on his own judgment while condemning Hillary's? Yes.

Do I, and many others, wish this thing could be swept under the rug through November? Of course, it just gives Republican's another meme to use against our party for a dozen or more news cycles.

Can it be? No. Not if he wants to beat John McCain... Senator Obama has to get out ahead of this issue before it caricatures him to the electorate. Like or not, independent voters decide the national election, and they do it just a few weeks out from November. Barack's not going to have as much time if this thing reaches convention, to get out there campaigning and changing pre-conceived notions about himself that, even now, are hardening in the minds of voters.

Is it saddening that our politics falls back on issues so tertiary to the job of the presidency, like character judgment in the Reverend Wright issue? Terribly.

Obama should have a chance to question the national media instead!

"Gentleman, in the aftermath of 9/11 there were several very outspoken preachers who claimed that the attack was the result of divine providence.  Many of these men had and continue to have very strong ties to the national GOP.

Yet, none of these men were put in the national spotlight for one month none stop.  No politician was smeared by association with these men.

Yet in the case of Jeremiah Wright -- and myself -- there was a different standard applied.  

Why do you believe this separate standard exists?

Do you believe reporting that relies exclusively on guilt by association for it's "juice" serves the public interest?  If so, how?"

I don't do a very good Glenn Beck impression, but here goes:

Those guys were white. This guy's black. Do you need me to spell it out for you? Black people are scary.

(Nobel Prize Winner) Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government. You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming. Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did.

Utterly stark raving mad.

by my Jack Russell:

"Goal, goal, goal, goal, global, goal, goal, Gore, Nazi scientist, scientists, dissenting, Hitler."  That's some pithy commentary there.  He's a freakin' nutbag.  I have to force myself to listen to him for short snippets so I can claim to be well-rounded, but he makes my head hurt with his bizarre non-sequiturs and the urge in me to reach through the TV screen and smack him is nearly as strong as it is whenever I see Bill Kristol's smirking mug.  

I blame you for the chicken and rice soup I just blew through my nose ;)

impression.  The guy is completely nuts.

There was some interview that he had we he was asked if there was ever a politician that he really "respected" -- and he paused for a moment and said . . . "You know, there is one. Rick Santorum".

I absolutely lost it.

With recovering alcoholics perhaps with anyone whose overcome a strong chemical addiction -- there seem to be an inability to see the world in anything but either/or and black/white terms.  

This is how Bush's mind appears to operate too -- him and Beck seem to think in similar patterns.  Introduce too much grey into the reality and its off the wagon again perhaps.  

... and I'll be a recovering alcoholic too. Wait ... scratch the "recovering" part.

It is sad and disappointing that Russert continues to do the GOP's bidding.  But then, he's an exec at NBC (owned by GE).  It's much less painful to read the transcript than to watch him roll out his attack strategy.  (Still goes down badly.  But a little less painful nonetheless.)

Are we ever going to find anyone that concenus provides as "fair". Obermann too harsh on Clinton, Wallace on Obama, O'Reillay on Clinton,ABC news on both Clinton/Obama at the debate and now Russert. First and formaost I think Ruissert deserves some credit. He calls everyone out and if you go onhis show he uses ones "own" words or "record" agaimst them when they try to spin.

In that light, here are some things I would hope Russert would ask Obama in the morning regarding what many have forgotten but was hit on in some early debates and that his his voting record and his large number of NV (not Voting) on critical issues leading into the campaign season.

For example:
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2008 (NV)
US-Peru Trade Agreement-NV
Defense Authorization Bill HR-4986 NV
Iraq Withdrawal Amendement -NV (3875 to HR2764)
Sense of the Senate on Guantanimo Bay Detainees (NV)
Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (1585) NV
Prohibiting US Assistance to Groups that Support Coercive Abortions (2764) NV

While many folks that support Obama claim that he is and will be a great "leader", I find it striking the the media fails to examine Obama's record in the analysis of such leadership. Many hear call into question other peoples leadership, but I find it rather disturbing that such a figure that has been elevated to the nomination of the Party would Not Vote (NV) and not go on record on some of these issues while in the Senate during 2007/08.

In my mind this goes directly to character and leadership a million times over any Rev. Wright quip and would hope that Russert would remind everyone of the lack of transparent view that Obama has displayed by failing to go on record on many issues like these and others.

We expect our leaders to make informed determinations and we simply just cannot sit back an accept such actions like perpetual NO Votes simply because we think Obama is a nice and charismatic Senator.

I for one would like to know where Obama stands on these issues so I like many of you can make an informed determination as well come November.

especially since several of the items were simply not that important.  A Sense of the Senate resolution is a non-binding "this is how we feel" type of thing, and you've got two on your list.  

Maybe I should point out that we have only two possible choices for the Dem nomination here.  You appear to be implying that Obama's failure to vote on these few selected issues out of hundreds of votes Senators make over the course of their tenure somehow reflects what?  I don't get what you're saying.

Accordingly, I thought it only fair to look at HRC's record on exactly the same issues.  Here it is:

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2008 (NV)
US-Peru Trade Agreement- NV
Defense Authorization Bill HR-4986 (NV)
Iraq Withdrawal Amendement -  (3875 to HR2764) - NV
Sense of the Senate on Guantanimo Bay Detainees - Y (94-3 vote)
Sense of Congress Regarding Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (1585) Y (!??)
Prohibiting US Assistance to Groups that Support Coercive Abortions (2764) NV

Apparently, Hillary doesn't show up for every vote either.  She voted with almost everyone else in the Senate on the Gitmo detainees.  So much for fighting it out.  And she voted FOR the ridiculous Sense of Congress regarding Iran - kind of a lead-in to her "totally obliterate" comment on Iran a few weeks later.  Senator Webb expressed vehement opposition to this, BTW, and for good reason.  I doubt Obama would have voted for it if he'd been in town that day.

That one would imply that "some of these were not that important" which is a bit disconcerting frankly. The facts are while many of these Senators were off seeking higher office many of them felt it appropriate to miss votes or out right neglect them during the political season to avoid having to be on record on such votes during the Primary but since the media would not cover these unimportant? votes anyway---no harm done right?
Yeah thats leadership, thats character for you. We have so watered down these definitions these days that its fine as long as its done by our our guy/gal. Its striking how Clinton is in Indiana talking about the 45K jobs lost in manufacturing under Bush but no one seems its relevant to ask why she missed as well as Obama that US-Peru vote given the potetential trade impacts on the blue collar/lower middle class jobs she says she cares so much about.
These were but a select few NV cast which issues may become more relevant in the General but here were countless others by both and McCain that were missed as well and thats not the kinda leadership that inspires anyone.

I guess many of the Obama faithful are not exactly sure where Obama stands on these issues either? Looking forward to Sunday morning.