So far as the Clintons are concerned Wright's words are more of an issue than waking up everyday and seeing one more foreclosure sign on your street. It is also more important than our proud men and women going to war in the view of everyone but their bodies coming back through the backdoor (out of everyones view). It is more important than jobs going out at an amazing rate and the OPEC considering using the EURO as the preferred currency. Wakeup people. People like Rev Wright still leave in the past, they are not the future. It takes minutes.........years to indoctrinate, and there are people you just cannot indoctrinate, therefore 20yrs at Wright's church which has a congregation of 8500 also includes a white congregation means nothing.
How about taking the worse 30secs of everybodies life and playing it in a loop to project that as the entire embodiment of the person's life.
This sort of politics is an insult to the intelligence of us as Americans.in all my travels, I always thought this was only done in backward third world countries with dictatorships. America is too great and too smart for this kind of slice and dice politics.

Sent by Ty | 10:49 AM ET | 04-03-2008

Yes, the subtle use of race in debate remains our clue as to racism in the speaker. And of course this is most likely to be effective with the older whiter group that are the dominant superdelegates. I thought the Clintons would have not stooped to this.

It is to Obama and his supports credit that they have not counted with hints of the prejudice against women. Nor have they pointed to the many white candidates that remain in churches that still attack gays, Jews, Muslims, and in some cases all those who are not members and not 'saved' by their church.

I would hope in the general election, overt Swiftboating by race would cause Republican votes to switch to Obama to at least partly compensate.

Sent by Cliff Dillmann | 10:50 AM ET | 04-03-2008

I disagree with the statement referencing what "thoughts" Obama harbors...the only one who knows how and what he truly thought/thinks about Rev. Wright's pulpit platform is Obama. As for myself, I approach life from the attitude that I can only THINK for myself and CHOOSE my actions for myself, not others...I do agree that the opposition will look at this and look deeply, removing layer by ugly layer the "shortcomings" that Obama brings to the table...the opposition will do the same to Hillary, if she gets the nomination, however, like her or not...Hillary is tough and welcomes the fight...Obama appears to avoid the battle and needs protection...the Superdelegates really need to think about the role they will play and do their job by viewing the entire dynamic...this is a dilemma for the Democratic Party and I wonder what will happen when neither candidate gets a decisive victory...neither will get the required Delegates, therefore, neither will experience a decisive victory and huge numbers of people will be disappointed when their choice for President is not selected...by the way I'm an Independent and I wish people would stop making the point that Obama has the Independent vote...he hasn't gotten my vote and I'm honestly considering either Hillary or McCain...I'm sure there are others out there that feel my pain...November yet?

Sent by ard | 11:01 AM ET | 04-03-2008

I would expect nothing less and nothing more from the Clinton campaign. Which I why I am an Obama supporter.

Sent by Phil R | 11:49 AM ET | 04-03-2008

Most of us have witnessed people who have given the perception of being tough, or talked tough, but when it had come down to real action where "rubber meets the road" they have made stupid decisions and have cowardly crawled into their shells. The point is different people portray toughness in different ways. Ali beat Foreman by peddling away from from him and picking his spots. Not everyone who gives the perception of toughness or acts tough in the presence of people, is actually tough when the crowd leaves and they are left alone.
we claim to know some of the candidates, because of what we read or see from biased and unbiased sources. I guess New Yorkers thought they knew Spitzer very well until........

Sent by Lisa | 12:56 PM ET | 04-03-2008

Well, the Wright topic IS fair game, whether it's relevant or not. However, I agree with Ty: There are more important things to worry about and discuss than the words of someone's pastor. I quit going to church years ago because I couldn't find one where there WASN'T a crazy pastor. Many religious friends and family members have accused me of being too judgmental, of perpetuating stereotypes, and of not having a strong faith. Those who hate Obama will always hate Obama, and this is what the Clinton's are trying to exploit. It's politics. I dont' think Hillary is any more electable than Obama; each candidate has her/his weaknesses that the GOP will lay bare. My hope is that the supers know this better than any of us, and they'll make the best decision in the end.

Sent by sem | 1:24 PM ET | 04-03-2008

The mental gymnastics that the so called "progressives" have to engage in to make themselves believe that the anti-American Wright-Obama axis is non-existent, irrelevant, is misunderstood, is more nuanced than the dumb masses understand or doesn't matter is staggering.

Maybe rocking back and forth whilst humming with your fingers in your ears would make it all go away.

Sent by deek | 3:57 PM ET | 04-03-2008

Hello deek,
During McCain-Bush campaign, in SC the "right-wing" defeated McCain by claiming that he had an illegimate black child. McCain was defeated, how about telling the same people that everything you said at the time about McCain was untrue. They would be certainly reminded. No wonder McCain goes around with a democrate to correct him when he has senior moments.

Sent by Texas | 5:07 PM ET | 04-03-2008

"the Clinton campaign seems to be admitting it is using race as an issue" where do you get that? Ickes said Rev. Wright is a key topic, and he should be. If the Democrats want to win they must look honestly at how Rev. Wright's hate speech will effect Obama's electability.
And if you believe Hillary Clinton hasn't had to deal with sexist comments and behavior in this campaign, you haven't been paying attention. Good grief, Nina Totenberg used the term "harpy" when speaking about Sen. Clinton on last week's "Inside Washington". I don't believe a similiar comment about Sen. Obama would have been tolerated.

Sent by Susan | 5:14 PM ET | 04-03-2008

Deek, what you call "mental gymnastics" I call "critical thinking."

Sent by Michelle | 5:39 PM ET | 04-03-2008

You ignore and explain away hatred at your own peril.

Carry on.

Sent by deek | 9:19 PM ET | 04-03-2008

deek- almost puts one to mind of the rhetorical gymnastics and indefatigable repetitiveness so-called "character
voters" must go to in order to try to make others believe that a highly selective focus on one aspect of a person's biography supercedes all others and is more important than offering solutions for very real issues. the arrogance of assuming that the "dumb masses" are permanently set off by pushing a few "they are not like you" buttons reminds one of the staggering stupidity in presenting the FISA-immunity debate as a "security" issue (AT and T shareholders are the real target of Al Qaeda, who knew?)

and i believe you inadvertently left out the "of evil" in your axis reference. just trying to be helpful.

Sent by tim in exile | 1:42 AM ET | 04-04-2008

All I can say is, if Democrats' petty infighting over matters like the Wright affair doesn't simmer down soon, we will have a Republican in the white House come 2009, and we will deserve everything we get.

Sent by George de Man | 8:01 AM ET | 04-04-2008

80,000 jobs lost in March. Since most people are one paycheck away from falling over the cliff, I guess the old Rev Wright's words would prevent that and also prevent foreclosures.

Sent by Ty | 10:41 AM ET | 04-04-2008

It is note worthy that the Clinton campaign can use the Rev Wright issue as much as they want, although there are more real issues at stake.
When "blacks" went through terrible times they turned to the church for comfort and help. Their "bloc" voting has some traces to the church as well.
The old Rev said things we do not agree with but critical analysis points to the fact that only one group of people were maliciously infected with syphillis by the government. (Tuskegee institute experiment).

Sent by Ty | 11:48 AM ET | 04-04-2008

What concerns me and what should concern us all, regardless of race or party affiliation is the way the media has allowed this story to spiral out of control. What's true is that a man, a church and the entirety of it's congregation have been maligned, slandered and castigated rather unfairly. As I continue to hear repeated characterizations of Trinity and Jeremiah Wright as bearers of hatred, it seems clear to me that while flatly untrue,this is the preferred story. Thanks to the internet, I took the time to investigate and found a wealth of primary resources concerning Trinity and Rev. Wright (not just looped soundbites). I listened to the sermon in question among others and I am somewhat stunned by the extreme misrepresentation that has proceeded with minimal challenge. When a story like this breaks, I reserve latitude for the mistakes that are surely to be made as reports scurry to "jump" on the story and get it to print. However, the dust is well settled - despite the Clintons desperate attempts to keep kicking it up to leverage as capital with downscale white voters and superdelegates. The claims made against this man (Wright), this church (Trinity), and by association Sen. Obama are false. And it sickens and saddens me that collectively we'd rather turn a blind eye and feed on all of the commotion rather than critically examine what has happened. The fiction is so much more satisfying than the truth. It is a pity and a shame.

Sent by Chandra, Virginia | 12:59 PM ET | 04-25-2008